Child-Centred - DRR - Toolkit Theory of Change

Child-Centred DRR Toolkit
Plan International
Contents
Preface..................................................................................................................................................................... iii
First Module – Training Children on Disaster Risk Reduction through the Hazard, Vulnerability
and Capacity Assessment (HVCA).........................................................................................................................1
First Module – Annexes.......................................................................................................................................30
First Module – Annex 1: Mind map example (provided by Plan Indonesia)............................................................. 31
First Module – Annex 2: Seasonal Calendar Example Worksheets............................................................................ 32
First Module – Annex 3: Disaster History Example Worksheets................................................................................ 33
First Module – Annex 4: Hazard Ranking Flip Chart Example....................................................................................34
First Module – Annex 5: Disaster Causes and Impacts Worksheet (from Plan Indonesia)..................................... 35
First Module – Annex 6: Stakeholder Diagram.............................................................................................................36
First Module – Annex 7: Evaluation chart example...................................................................................................... 37
First Module – Annex 8: Plan International’s Child Protection Policy (as of 2010).................................................38
Second Module – Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating Child Centred Disaster Risk Reduction
Programmes: Framework and Tools....................................................................................................................41
Second Module – Annexes...................................................................................................................................73
Second Module – Annex 1: DRR Levels and Dimensions of Change......................................................................... 74
Second Module – Annex 2: DRR Theory of Change Diagram....................................................................................77
Second Module – Annex 3: Child Centred DRR Outcomes......................................................................................... 78
Second Module – Annex 4: Context-specific example of a country program integrating DRR and
Climate Change Adaptation – Plan Bolivia.....................................................................................................................85
Second Module – Annex 5: Plan UK Sample Log Frame Submission using DFID’s log frame format.................89
Third Module – Action Planning with Children on Disaster Risk Reduction.................................................95
Third Module – Annexes....................................................................................................................................101
Third Module – Annex 1: Plan El Salvador Implementing Small Scale Projects to Reduce our Risks:
Guide for Youth Groups..................................................................................................................................................102
Third Module – Annex 2: Plan Bangladesh – Planning, Resource Mobilization, and Implementation................114
Fourth Module – Advocacy with Children on Disaster Risk Reduction........................................................123
Fourth Module – Annexes..................................................................................................................................141
Fourth Module – Annex 1: Plan Cambodia DRR Advocacy Guide with Children.................................................. 142
Fourth Module – Annex 2: Making a Video to Educate and Advocate................................................................... 147
Fourth Module – Annex 3: Conducting Children’s Focus Group Discussions.........................................................162
Preface
Thousands of children, hundreds of community members and partner civil society organization staff, and several dozen
Plan International staff in eight countries have contributed to the completion of this Child-Centred Disaster Risk Reduction
Toolkit. Children and community members worked with Plan International staff and its partner organizations to implement
Plan’s Child-Centred Disaster Risk Reduction Programme, during the period 2006 – 2010. The programme was led by
Plan UK through funding from DFID and DIPECHO. Their experiences were, in most cases, the first time children were
actively engaged in the management of disasters in their communities. In addition to contributing to the increase in their
communities’ resilience to disasters, their experiences have contributed to the development of this toolkit, to help Plan
International programme countries and other organizations and groups to work effectively with children to reduce risks
and increase community resilience to disasters and the effects of climate change.
This toolkit was written and compiled by Phoebe Farag, independent consultant and former Learning and Impact
Assessment Manager at Plan UK and Kelly Hawrylyshyn, the Deputy Programme Manager for the Plan UK DRR
Programme. Daniel Stothart, Plan Dominican Republic National Disaster Management Advisor, and Nick Hall, Plan
International’s DRR Advisor, also contributed feedback. The modules of this toolkit are based heavily on the tools that
Plan’s country offices developed and implemented with local organizations and children’s groups. The case studies are
drawn directly from Plan’s experiences documented through both project management reporting and through face to face
discussions with Plan staff and programme evaluators.
Staff members of international, national, and local non-governmental organizations interested in working with children and
supporting community-based DRR work will find this toolkit most helpful for their work. This toolkit is made up of four
modules focusing on:
1 Training Children on Disaster Risk Reduction Through the Hazard, Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment.
This module contains guidelines for training with children, and a training manual with a series of training sessions and
activities to conduct a child-centred HVCA. This module provides the foundation for a child centred DRR programme
– as a participatory, HVCA process is key for a successful DRR programme/project.
2 Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating Child-Centred Disaster Risk Reduction Programmes. This module
contains a framework for planning, monitoring and evaluating child-centred DRR, as well as important guidelines
and tools for project/programme designing -- such as child-centred DRR outcomes and indicators, and for designing
project/programme designing -- such as focus group questions. This module provides a more theoretical description
of the child centred DRR approach and expected outcomes.
3 Action Planning with Children on Disaster Risk Reduction. This module contains guidelines and tools for
conducting action planning with children, including how to support children to develop and implement small scale
DRR projects.
4 Advocacy with Children on Disaster Risk Reduction. This module contains an advocacy framework,
guidelines, and case studies from Plan’s experience doing DRR advocacy work with children locally, nationally, and
internationally. It also provides guidelines and tools for planning advocacy work with children.
“Child-Centred Disaster Risk Reduction – Building resilience through participation,” written by Laetitia Antonowicz, Allison
Anderson and Louise Wetheridge from Education for Change, describes and analyzes the lessons learned from Plan’s
child-centred DRR experience. This publication, coupled with a series of extended case studies on child centred DRR, are
complementary resources to be used with this toolkit. Together, these resources provide the evidence of and practical
support to practitioners who wish to contribute to the important role children play in building their communities’ resilience
to disasters and climate change.
P rioritising the education and the agency of young people is an essential feature of any
society’s capacity to manage risk and develop sustainably. The threats that climate change
bring emphasizes the need to recognize the wide range of risks inherent in development. It is
not about “mainstreaming risk into” development but rather recognizing that development
is risk management. Good development is about unpacking that risk, making it visible and
transparent, and ensuring that all households, especially their children, and all societies have
sufficient information to take decisions on how much risk they will accept and how they will
manage it. An informed and motivated citizenry will ensure good governance of managing risks,
and good governance will thrive on the input of proactive citizens.
© Plan International 2010

First Module – Training Children on

Disaster Risk Reduction through the
Hazard, Vulnerability and Capacity
Assessment (HVCA)
Child-Centred DRR Toolkit – Plan International
First Module – Training Children on Disaster Risk Reduction through the Hazard, Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (HVCA)
About this Module

This section of Plan International’s Child-Centred Disaster Risk Reduction Toolkit contains a practical guide and trainer’s
manual for training children in DRR using the Hazard, Vulnerability, and Capacity Assessment (HVCA). It contains the
following:
• A rationale for the use of the HVCA as a capacity building process for children, its utility as a DRR program planning
process, and as a disaster management monitoring tool when appropriately linked to local disaster management
governance. This section also contains a list of additional resources on training children and communities for DRR.
• An explanation of the purpose and use of the manual with children.
• Tips for participatory training with children, including a list of additional Plan resources.
• Individual Child Centred DRR training modules for each of the HVCA stages. Each module includes the objectives
for the session, and some contain a selection of choices for how to conduct the session within different contexts/
timeframes/etc. These have been used by Plan International with children.
• An explanation of steps to be taken after the accomplishment of an HVCA with children.
Introduction: Why should children participate in the monitoring of hazards and risks in
their communities?
Plan International believes that children, who are most affected by disasters and often the least consulted in disaster
management, have the right to participate in disaster management and climate change decisions. Their participation in
those decisions can ensure the realization of other child rights enshrined by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,
including the right to safety, survival, protection from violence and harm, adequate health care, and education, all of which
are compromised in the event of a disaster, natural or man-made. Programme evidence has shown that children have a
unique perspective on disaster risks that can improve a community’s overall resilience to disasters, and they are effective
communicators of risk to each other and their communities.
Disaster risk reduction (DRR) is a key component in the disaster management cycle, linking disaster preparedness and
mitigation activities with long-term community development. Plan International’s experience of working with children in
DRR has shown that children’s participation in the identification of hazards and the monitoring of risks in their communities
is a central component of a child-centred DRR program. Training children on DRR, therefore, is most effectively centred
on conducting, with children, a child-friendly, participatory Hazard, Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (HVCA). The
participatory HVCA process with children accomplishes two important objectives: it builds children’s knowledge and skills
in DRR, and it enables children to analyze and monitor disaster risks, vulnerabilities, and capacities in their communities, to
better protect themselves, and to share their informed views to influence disaster management governance and planning.
Once an HVCA has been conducted with children, children’s gained knowledge and skills on their community’s hazard and
vulnerability profile must be applied to inform planning and action for prevention, preparation, and mitigation activities
the children prioritise at the end of the HVCA process. Follow-up child centred DRR programming springing from their
HVCAs can include small projects that the children manage themselves to affect change, awareness raising, and advocacy
in cooperation with adult groups and NGOs to hold local governments accountable to their responsibilities, with the aim of
creating spaces for children’s voices to be heard on a regular basis in disaster management decision making.

Some references for more information include:
1
Back, Emma, Catherine Cameron and Thomas Tanner (2009). “Children and Disaster Risk Reduction: Taking Stock and Moving Forward.” Research Report. London:
Children in a Changing Climate. Retrieved [14 July 2010] from http://www.childreninachangingclimate.org/docs/Child%20Led%20DRR_Taking%20Stock.pdf
2
Mitchell, Tom, Katharine Haynes, Nick Hall, Wei Choong, and Katie Oven (2008). “The Role of Children and Youth in Communicating Disaster Risk.” Children, Youth
and Environments 18(1): 254-279. Retrieved [14 July 2010] from http://www.colorado.edu/journals/cye
3
Mitchell, Tom, Tom Tanner, Katharine Haynes (2009). “Children as agents of change for Disaster Risk Reduction: Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines.”
Working Paper No. 1. London: Children in a Changing Climate. Retrieved [14 July 2010] from http://www.childreninachangingclimate.org/docs/CCC_
Working%20Paper_Final1_Screen.pdf
4
Plan with Worldvision (2009). Children on the Frontline: Children and young people in disaster risk reduction. London: Plan International. Retrieved [14 July 2010]
from http://www.plan-uk.org/pdfs/childernonthefrontline.pdf
HVCAs can also be used in other ways that go beyond disasters and DRR programming. These include situational
assessments to inform the design of a project; planning a country strategy; planning a broader development program
strategy; or when conducting a program evaluation at the community level. What is most important to keep in mind is that
the HVCA should never be an extractive exercise. Children must know how and for what purpose their opinions are being
used.
It is possible to train children on DRR without using the HVCA process by having training facilitators pre-identify the
common hazards and risks that children in those communities confront on a regular basis, and listing the measures that
children and their families can take to reduce risks. However, this does not support a participatory approach to DRR, which
is the approach of this toolkit.
When adult trainers pre-identify the common hazards and risks, they take away the opportunity to gain from children’s
unique perspectives on the risks in their communities. Plan International’s experience implementing DRR programs with
children has shown that when given the opportunity, children can identify risks, vulnerabilities, and capacities that adults
often fail to see, disclose, or prioritize (such as alcoholism, violence against children, and social exclusion). Children’s
unique perspectives and ideas can contribute to the community’s overall resilience. An adult led approach also narrows
child-centred DRR programming into an educational program, rather than a participatory governance program. Using the
participatory HVCA process with children creates an opportunity and tool for them to decide for themselves what type of
DRR work they would like to do in their communities. It also provides an important way for their voices to be integrated in
the local governance of disaster management. Children, as effective communicators of risk, may decide after conducting an
HVCA, that they would like to educate their peers on the risks and vulnerabilities they have identified and ways to mitigate
them. The children themselves can therefore create more effective awareness raising strategies to share with their peers
and the wider community, using the hazards, risks, and vulnerabilities they have identified themselves, rather than those
pre-identified by adults.
A group of children in El Salvador used direct action to stop damage to their local environment which
threatened their community.
The River Sumpul forms the border between the community of Petapa in El Salvador and Honduras,
generating large flows during the wet season with the power to cause significant scouring and riverbank
erosion.
The children of the Petapa Emergency Committee identified the unregulated extraction of rocks and stones
from the river as a major risk, leading to increased erosion and vulnerability to flooding of houses near the
river. Signs prohibiting extraction for personal use have since been erected with the agreement of the local
leaders.
Children recounted the story of the arrival of a lorry from outside the community to load stones from
the river. Acting on the strength of their convictions and buoyed by their previous activities, a number
of children went to the river to protest at this activity, sitting on top of the lorry until it agreed to leave.
Although for personal use, this collection had apparently been sanctioned by local authorities, revealing
power relations central to the challenge of risk reduction.
Thus, this manual focuses on training children on DRR using the participatory HVCA process. While more time consuming
than other methods of DRR training with children, it produces greater benefits for children and a more effective approach
for promoting overall community resilience to disasters.
The training modules in this manual are draw heavily from the training facilitator guides developed by the following Plan
country offices and field staff:
- Avianto Amri, “Risk Assessment Training Module,” Plan Indonesia, Version, II December 2008
- Plan Bangladesh (with ADPC, Islamic Relief, and the European Commission), “Preparing Schools For A Safer
Tomorrow, A MULTI-HAZARD APPROACH MANUAL ON SCHOOL SAFETY IN BANGLADESH,” Revised, April 2010
- Plan Ecuador (with Secretaría Nacional de Gestión de Riesgos). “GUÍA PARA ANÁLISIS DE AMENAZAS,
VULNERABILIDADES Y CAPACIDADES, CON LA PARTICIPACIÓN DE NIÑAS, NIÑOS Y ADOLESCENTES,” 2010.

While the HVCA is a useful tool for community level evaluations, it is not meant to serve as a tool for a large-scale (national or international) investigation or
evaluation. It can, however, inform one. For more discussion on when and when not to use an HVCA, see Ruiz, Christina. Christian Aid Good Practice Guide: Participatory
Vulnerability Capacity Assessment (PVCA). London: Christian Aid.
- Plan Haiti. “Children’s Voices in the PDNA: Children and youth consultation on their concerns and hopes following
the January 2010 earthquake facilitator training guide,” 2010.
- Plan UK. “Disaster Risk Reduction & Climate Change: Making a Video to Educate and Advocate.” PowerPoint Presentation.
- Plan El Salvador. “CAMBIANDO NUESTRA COMUNIDAD EN BASE A NUESTRAS AMENAZAS, VULNERABILIDADES
Y CAPACIDADES. GUIA PARA JOVENES BRIGADISTAS.”
In addition, the following manual produced by the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Societies served as an important
resource for Plan country offices when developing their own DRR training programs: “Education, organization, and
community preparation for Risk Reduction.” Costa Rica: International Federation of Red Cross Red Crescent Societies.
http://www.proventionconsortium.org/themes/default/pdfs/CRA/VCA1_en.pdf
There are additional training manuals produced by other organizations working on child-centred DRR that are also useful
references. These include:
- Save the Children Alliance: “Child-Led Disaster Risk Reduction: A Practical Guide.”
http://www.preventionweb.net/files/3820_CHLDRR.pdf
- Child Oriented Participatory Risk Assessment and Planning (COPRAP) - Center for Positive Future, Center for Disaster
Preparedness: http://www.proventionconsortium.org/themes/default/pdfs/CRA/COPRAP_meth.pdf
Additional training guides, manuals, and other DRR resources can be found at:
- Provention Consortium: www.proventionconsortium.org
- Prevention Web: www.preventionweb.net
- Children in a Changing Climate: www.childreninachangingclimate.org
Purpose and use of this manual

The purpose of the manual is to serve as a practical guide for DRR program implementers to train children on DRR through
the HVCA process. It is meant for use by practitioners who have worked with children, have the skills to do so, and who
want to implement a child-centred DRR program with them. This training program is meant to:
1- Build children’s capacities in DRR
2- Enable children to analyze and monitor disaster risks, vulnerabilities, and capacities in their communities
3- Help children plan for DRR activities they can initiate or participate in their communities
4- Provide a space for children to contribute their perspectives to DRR in their communities
5- Link children’s HVCA findings appropriately to local disaster management governance and planning.
The training program outlined in this manual is NOT a stand-alone activity. It must be a part of either an overall child-
centred DRR program where children’s voices will be fully integrated or other programme work that aims to address
children’s HVCA outcomes. An organization should never conduct a participatory HVCA with children (or any community
members) unless it has the resources and political will to take forward their recommendations into appropriate actions.
Otherwise, it is disempowering and unethical to use up so much of children’s time and extract information from them,
without ensuring their benefit from the exercise.
Composition of the Training Group

The training activities in this manual have been used by Plan International staff with children ages 10-12 and ages 13-17. In
this document, children are defined as up to the age of 18, as per the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Training
activities may require modifications for effective application with children younger than age 10. We strongly recommend
that HVCA training is provided in separate groups for children ages 10-12, children 13-15, and children 15 and older.
Children in different age groups have different capacities and different communication styles. In a training, their learning
and participation is most effective when grouped with similar age ranges.
In most of the cultural contexts where Plan works, separating the training groups by gender has also yielded the most
participation from all children and allowed for different perspectives to be heard. As such, it is also recommended that boys
and girls be separated during DRR training using the HVCA.
We also recommend HVCA training for children is conducted separately from training provided to adults. While a
comprehensive, community-based DRR program should include interaction between children and adults (including adult
family members, community leaders and duty bearers), to ensure full participation of children in the HVCA and to reduce
possible power issues, we recommend that that the training should provide a ‘safe space’ for children to voice their views,
keeping in mind that the ultimate aim of child-centred DRR is for children’s ideas to be integrated with community-wide
adult led DRR.
Group Size for Training Session

The exercises in this manual are best accomplished with groups of 15-20 children. Most training activities may also be more
effectively accomplished with smaller groups, but larger groups might be more difficult to facilitate due to the participatory
nature of the activities.
The ideal training process as described in this manual would take a minimum of 12 training hours that are best spread over
two or three days. If all training activities listed are carried out, the facilitator should allow for four or five days of training.
Finally, this manual is flexible. The training modules presented in this manual are modules Plan International staff has
used successfully with children in different cultural contexts. As mentioned in the introduction, additional complementary
resources and training manuals are available by other organizations for working with children and communities in DRR;
these can be consulted for additional ideas. The activities in this manual can be modified, and others can be used to replace
them, as long as they are participatory, child-friendly, and support the same set of objectives for child centred DRR.
Tips for training with children

The following tips for training with children are based on Plan’s overall experiences of carrying out training activities with
children, as well as our experience on child-centred DRR training and on conducting HVCAs with children.
Characteristics of a Child-Friendly Training

Listed below are key elements for carrying out effective training with children:
• Child protection: ensure the training environment is safe (physically and emotionally); ensuring trainer(s) are trusted
to work with children; parental consent for children’s participation in training activities is obtained.
• Child participation: ensure activities enable children’s views to be shared; children’s views are respected by trainer
and fellow participants; no child is excluded from participation in the group; children’s individual sharing of opinions
must also be kept confidential (see below, “Best Interests of the Child,” for more information).
• Child engagement: ensure training activities are fun, interactive, and age-appropriate.
Best interest of the child

Plan International has seven value statements that guide its child centred work and its partnerships and relationships. The
first value is that we will always act in the best interests of the child. In the context of an HVCA, and depending on the
political context, children may be at risk when they identify actions to address their vulnerabilities which in turn contest
the status quo. Their individual views may put them at risk if, in discussions, they challenge power relations and address
equity issues. Acting in the best interests of the child in these situations includes keeping in mind the community’s political
contexts and planning accordingly to avoid situations that might put children’s safety at risk. In addition to keeping
individual children’s views confidential, this could include conducting separate trainings for children in different groups
(disaggregated by gender and/or age) where equity issues can come up and can create situations of risk. Trainers should
work with colleagues and other stakeholders to assess these types of risks and plan accordingly to minimize them.
Trainer/Facilitator qualifications
In this document, “training” and “facilitating” are used interchangeably. During the HVCA process, the trainer needs to play
both roles—training and educating the children on DRR and climate change concepts, building children’s capacities in DRR
skills and tools, and facilitating discussions among children to allow their opinions and perspectives to emerge clearly and
freely.
Trainers who use this manual with children should:
1 Have knowledge of child rights, and of DRR concepts and tools
2 Have ability and experience in conducting participatory trainings with children
3 Be prepared to learn from children
Ideally, two trainers that complement each other in these areas of expertise should co-facilitate the training sessions
with children. While co-facilitation might require more preparation time, it also provides children with the opportunity
to experience two different faces and facilitation styles. It also models how DRR work can rarely be accomplished by one
person, but most often is accomplished when we work together. Finally, co-facilitation of two adults can also help ensure
child protection standards are met and gender appropriate facilitation is provided. We also recommend, where possible,
that training groups made up of girls be facilitated by female trainers, and training groups made up of boys be facilitated by
male trainers.
During a training session with children, qualified trainers should be able to establish trust with the children being trained,
build good relationships with them, facilitate good relationships among the children being trained, and build their self-
confidence and self-esteem.
Co-training with children/youth

If possible, adult trainers may also co-facilitate the training with another child or youth leader who has done an HVCA
before. Plan’s experience conducting focus group discussions with children for the “Views from the Frontline” survey
found that children were especially keen on participating in focus group discussions when the organizers or facilitators of
the discussion were also children. If a child or youth leader is chosen as a co-facilitator, preparation time should be spent
with him or her to work on participatory facilitation skills, review DRR concepts, and plan for the division of training
responsibilities. It is important to keep in mind that the child or youth co-facilitator’s time must also be respected. The child
or youth should not be over-worked and should not be given administrative responsibilities that are the adult trainer’s job.
Utilising a child/youth trainer also provides opportunities for replication and sustainability of the training process.
It is highly recommended, especially when working with illiterate or pre-literate children, that a note-taker also be present
during the HVCA process to document all ideas and discussions. The note-taker should be prepared (together with the
training facilitators) to foresee when important ideas and opinions are shared during the training sessions.

Seven value statements guide our work and relationships:
• We will always act in the best interests of the child.
• We respect child rights and human rights and we believe in everyone's innate and inalienable dignity as human beings regardless of age, gender, race, colour,
ethnicity, religion, class, nationality, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation or disability.
• We are ethical, honest, transparent, and place a high value on integrity.
• We create the conditions in our work, in our activities and in our organisation for personal empowerment, especially of children and the most marginalised.
• We acknowledge that we cannot solve problems of poverty alone but only through teamwork and mutual partnerships.
• We are accountable to all of our stakeholders in our communication, finances, performance measures, and results and strive for effectiveness, sustainability,
and efficiency in everything we do. We adhere to recognised international standards.
• We strive for continuous learning and improvement. We listen to new ideas and encourage entrepreneurial activities, innovation, creativity, and change.
http://plan-international.org/about-plan/how-we-work/values-1
The participatory process

As described in the introduction section, it is important that adult trainers adhere to a participatory process of a child-
centred DRR training on HVCA. When discussing hazards in their communities, it is easy from an adult perspective to pre-
define what hazards exist. However, the participatory process allows us to fully benefit from children’s perspectives, as well
as increases their learning and capacities in DRR. It may take longer, but is a good investment of effort. For every session
described in this manual, be sure that enough time is provided for children to explore the issues in depth.
At the same time, the adult facilitator must also avoid “over-valuing” what children’s views at the expense of accuracy. The
training being provided is an opportunity to educate children on DRR and climate change. Helping children understand
and appreciate the real causes of disasters is an important facilitation role to be aware of. This is particularly the case when
addressing the impact of climate change on disaster risks, as well as when outlining the linkages between natural and
manmade hazards. Furthermore, many disaster risks that exist do not have a linear cause and effect. These things should
be explained to children without discounting their views and ideas. Thus, the trainer or co-trainer should be well-prepared
with knowledge of DRR and climate change concepts and skills.
We have often experienced that children’s ideas and perceptions of their own risks and vulnerabilities may be different from
what a DRR trainer/facilitator expects. Sometimes, the HVCA can raise issues that are not directly associated with natural
hazards or disaster risks. For example, children have raised issues such as HIV/AIDS, alcoholism, child abuse undrinkable
water, etc. In these situations, the facilitator should not discount the views and ideas raised by the children. When faced
with budgetary and donor limitations, the facilitator should clarify expectations about where support and resources can
be devoted. Issues and problems raised that are outside the purview of the DRR program should be noted, and if your
organization has widespread program interventions similar to Plan’s (covering health, education, water and sanitation, child
protection, etc.) efforts should be made to link the children with other adult groups, organizations, programs or resources
that address their specific concerns.
I n Cambodia, children raised the important issue of violence against children in their HVCAs. Plan
Cambodia linked the children’s groups to activities being implemented under Plan’s Learn Without
Fear Campaign.
Asking the right questions

Asking appropriate and encouraging questions is one of the most important skills of a trainer/facilitator. Whenever a
training activity or game is conducted, a debriefing session, with the right questions to guide the discussion and elicit
the most feedback from children, is essential for learning. During discussions with children, whether in plenary or in small
groups, questions should be open-ended to encourage sharing and discussion. They should authentically request the
knowledge and opinions of children (rather than manipulating their responses for a pre-defined answer).
The following sequence for debriefing questions can help the trainer develop questions specific for the DRR training:
1. Description: What do you see happening?
2. Analysis: Why do you think it is happening?
3. Application: When it happens in your situation, what problems does it cause?
4. Implementation: What can we do about it?
After a training activity, the training facilitator can use a list of pre-prepared questions, following this sequence, to debrief
the activity with the children so that they can fully reflect on the activity they took part in. Several questions can be asked
in each training section of the DRR training process, and the amount of questions should be proportional to the importance
of the session to the overall training objectives.
Asking the right questions during DRR training should also help lead the children to a clear understanding of DRR concepts,
build an informed opinion for how they can contribute to the solutions in a way that is empowering, but does not put them
at risk.

These questions were developed by Jane Vella, author of Learning to Listen, Learning to Teach (2002, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass).
Small group discussions, in groups of two, three, and larger, are a commonly used method in participatory trainings.
When working with children, it is important to provide support to the children in their discussion groups. Some children
may have never experienced this form of learning, and thus will need direction and support from adult facilitators. Do not
‘give them the answers,’ but ask the right questions to keep the discussion flowing. Gradually during the training program,
children will require less support as they become accustomed to these learning methods, but adult facilitators should not
withdraw their support too early to ensure learning is also taking place. Eventually, however, there should be a chance for
children to have discussions on their own, without direct adult guidance.
Training games, either used to support the learning objectives or as energizers, are important aspects of child-friendly
trainings. When training games are used, adult facilitators should participate in the games with the children, rather than
standing as passive observers. An effective way to engage children during a training is to ask them if they have ideas for
energizer games, and have children lead the activity while the adults follow.
All children in the training should be included in the process. Facilitators must be able to manage exclusion of children,
looking out for either the natural exclusion of more introverted children, the discouraging behaviour of children towards
each other (such as teasing), and making accommodations for children with disabilities to share their views.
The participants
One of the challenges of participatory development is the inclusion of marginalized groups. Children, in general, have
been excluded from community disaster management, but among children there are additional areas of exclusion: socio-
economic status, gender, levels and access to education, urban and rural, indigenous groups, children with disabilities, slum
dwellers, refugees, out of school children, street children, children living with HIV/AIDS and others.
Working with marginalized children also poses a challenge in that many of them have internalized their marginalization and
oppression, and may have difficulty feeling qualified to participate, especially if mixed with other, more privileged children.
When faced with mixed groups, the facilitator must take great care to show respect to all children, and figure out ways to
draw in underprivileged children and affirm their thoughts and opinions.
Ideally when planning for DRR training on HVCAs, if access to groups of marginalized children proves difficult, it may be
necessary to develop partnerships with different specialised organizations that do have strong relationships with children
with special needs.
T o engage children with disabilities, Plan Sierra Leone partnered with the Disabled Rights Movement
(http://sieragrassrootagency.tripod.com/id15.html), an organization of disabled and non-disabled
youth working to address the problem of marginalization including economic, social and political exclusion
and poverty that disabled youth are faced with every day. Plan Indonesia and Plan Bangladesh similarly
partnered with Handicap International, an international organization with local programs and projects in
those countries (http://www.handicap-international.us/).
Timing
In addition to the right to participate in decision making which affects their lives, including DRR, it is important to
remember that children also have a right to learn, and a right to play. All efforts should be made to conduct DRR training
and HVCA with children during appropriate times for children, without infringing on their studies, household chores and
leisure time. Alternatively, DRR training can be integrated into school educational activities, noting that this strategy can
exclude out-of-school children.
Sharing the outcomes

Conducting a child-centred DRR training and HVCA is not meant to be an extractive exercise, and should not be used as
such. At the end of the process, the outputs should be shared with all the children. In addition, when the outputs of the
process with children are used in different DRR activities (such as in advocacy, in program planning, etc.), child participants
should hear about the outcomes that have resulted from their participation and engage in evaluating the impact of their
outcomes.
Additional Plan resources on training and consulting with children that can also be reviewed for further information include:
- Grazyna Bonati, Plan Togo: 2006, “Monitoring and Evaluating with Children: A short guide.” http://plan-
international.org/files/Africa/WARO/publications/monitoring.pdf
- Grazyna Bonati. Plan Togo: 2006. “Consulting with Children: How to increase children’s participation in development
programs. A short guide.” http://plan-international.org/files/Africa/WARO/publications/consulting-with-children.pdf
- Daniel Walden and Kelly Hawrylyshyn, Plan UK: 2010, “Conducting Children’s Focus Group Discussions: Reflections
and Guidelines.” Evaluation Document. (This document also contains additional useful references). This document is
annexed in the Fourth Module: Advocacy with Children on Disaster Risk Reduction.
- Gary Antencio. Plan Cambodia: 2009. “Bamboo Shoots: A Training Manual on Child-Centred Community
Development for Children’s Groups.”
Child-centred DRR Training Using the HVCA

Training Objectives
By the end of this training program, children will be able to:
• Define the concepts of hazard, vulnerability, capacity, risk, and risk reduction
• Identify and rank hazards, vulnerabilities, capacities, and risks in their community
• Analyze their community’s disaster history and seasonal disaster calendar
• Identify and analyze disaster causes and risks (including climate change)
• Link identified vulnerabilities to opportunities for capacities and resources that can reduce risk
• Plan for disaster preparedness, prevention, and mitigation activities
Contents
Session I: Icebreakers, Hopes, Fears and Expectations, Ground Rules
Session II: Community Map
Session III: Better Understanding of Our Risks, Optional Transect Walk
Session IV: Hazard Identification
Session V: Seasonal Calendar and Disaster History
Session VI: Hazard Ranking
Session VII: Disaster Causes and Impacts
Session VIII: Vulnerability Identification
Session IX: Transforming vulnerabilities into capacities and identifying prevention, preparation, and mitigation activities
Session X: Stakeholder mapping and influencing
Session XI: Conclusion and Evaluation
First Module – Training Children on Disaster Risk Reduction through the Hazard, Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (HVCA) 10
Session I: Icebreakers/Getting started

Session I objectives: Participants will get to know one another, share their expectations for the workshop, and establish
ground rules.
Session I time: Approximately 1.5 – 2 hours (30-45 minutes for the icebreaker, 30-45 minutes for hopes and fears, 15-20
minutes for the ground rules).
Materials needed: Flip chart paper, coloured markers, crayons, pencils, large cards, tape
1 Icebreaker Option 1: Mind Map

(Note to Facilitator: There are numerous fun and engaging icebreakers that can be done with children. We suggest
the ‘mind map’ for this DRR training with HVCA because the children will be working with maps throughout the
training, and it is a good way to begin this thinking and link it with the following training activities. If the group of
children being trained have never worked together before, it may be a good idea to do a shorter icebreaker at the
beginning of the training, before the session on hopes/expectations and the session on concerns and the ground
rules).
During this activity, participants are asked to draw a map about who they are by using a Mind Map. In addition to creating
ease between the facilitator and the participants, this also allows the group to find out the participants’ experiences in
disasters. An example of a mind map can be drawn on a flip chart and shared with the group (see example in First Module
- Annex 1).
1. Divide the participants in groups. Each group should be between 4-6 people.
2. Ask the participants to draw a Mind Map in a flipchart that contains the following information about each
participant:
a. Full name and nickname
b. Age
c. Parents occupation
d. Daily activities/ occupation
e. Things that I am most afraid of and why
f. Experience of disaster
g. Number of family members
h. Education level (what grade are you in?) (For children in school)
i. Hobby
3. Each flipchart consists of the consolidated Mind Map of all participants in one group
4. To make it easier, show a sample of a Mind Map with personal details of the facilitator.
5. Ask each group to name the group based on their preference.
6. Ask each group to present their Mind Map to the rest of the participants.
7. Thank the children after their presentations; highlight any observations on similarities of disaster experiences/ fears/
hobbies/parents occupation/ etc.
2 Icebreaker Option 2: Body Map

(Note to facilitator: This activity can be done to replace the Mind Map, or in addition to it if there is more time;
particularly if there has been a recent disaster and children need to process their feelings. This is also an appropriate
activity to do with children who are illiterate or pre-literate. It is recommended, however, that this be done among
children who know each other or who have done a simpler icebreaker prior to. It is also important for the facilitator
to look out for any children that show signs of distress or who seem deeply affected by the activity and ensure that
they receive proper support and follow-up psychosocial support).
The body map is a participatory tool that helps children to explore how an emergency has affected their lives, experiences,
views and feelings.
1. If the group includes both boys and girls, divide the participants into a male and female group. If not, just divide
them into two groups.
2. Get the participants to stick sheets of flipchart paper together. Ask for a volunteer in each group to lie on the paper
to have their body shape drawn around to create a large body map which represents children and young people.
3. Use the body map and body parts as a focus to explore and record participants’ views regarding the different
ways in which living a disaster emergency context has affected their lives. For example, key questions relating to the
body map include:
• Head: How has the emergency context affected their mind, they way they think, and/or their learning? (explore
both positive and negative examples)
• Eyes: What have they seen with their eyes as a result of living through the emergency? How has the emergency
context affected the way people see children and young people? How has the context affected their perceptions
of the world?
• Ears: What have they heard as a result of living through the emergency context? How has the context affected
the way people listen to children and young people; or the way children and young people listen to adults?
• Mouth: How has the emergency context affected the way people communicate with each other and the way
adults communicate with children and young people and/or the way children and young people communicate
with one another?
• Main body: How has the emergency context affected their health? Their protection from different forms of abuse
or exploitation?
• Heart: How has the emergency context affected the feelings people have for different people in their community
or nation? How has it affected their own feelings and people’s feelings towards them? Who did they get support
from in times of need?
• Arms and hands: As a result of the emergency context what kinds of activities are they more or less involved in?
• Legs and feet: As a result of the emergency context are there any changes in the places where children and young
people do or do not, or can or cannot go? For example, for work, study or income generation?
Note: Children should be encouraged to draw their answers to each question on the flipchart and in the meantime
the facilitator/note taker should take notes on verbal answers given by the children.
• Additional questions:
1. What are children’s perceptions of the needs and fears of their parents, other family members, neighbours, school,
community, country?
2. What are the coping strategies that people are using during this emergency situation (migration, adoption,
begging, violence, etc)
4. In plenary, facilitate a discussion on the body map.

What are the participants’ views about the various impacts of living through the emergency? What are the most
negative impacts? What are the most positive impacts?
Do the participants think the impacts described here are similar for all groups of children in the community (girls and
boys)? Are some children (girls or boys of different ages) more or less impacted by the context?
Some points to include in the plenary discussion are: The importance of exploring and analysing differences in views
and experiences according to issues such as gender, age, disability, ethnicity, geography, socio-economic background,
socio-political context, living context (for example, internal displacement from homes and communities); The
importance of exploring any positive, as well as negative impacts.
5. Ask each group to display their body map in a gallery display so that participants can see differences in experiences
between the groups or among girls and boys of different ages and backgrounds.
6. Ask each group to present the three most significant experiences from their body maps.
7. Thank the children for sharing their thoughts and experiences.
3 Icebreaker Option 3: Our feelings in the event of emergencies and disasters

(Note to facilitator: This activity can be done to replace the Mind Map, or in addition to it if there is more time;
particularly if there has been a recent disaster and children need to process their feelings. This is also an appropriate
activity to do with children who are illiterate or pre-literate. It is recommended, however, that this be done among
children who know each other or who have done a simpler icebreaker prior to).
During this activity, participants discuss the different feelings they might have in the event of a disaster, sometimes feelings
that cannot be controlled, including fear, anger, crying, anxiety, and despair. Learning how to manage these feelings
is important in an emergency or disaster so that we can act appropriately. Disasters can scare us, our families and our
neighbours, but solidarity and teamwork should be cultivated so that we can support each other.
1. Explain to the group that during this activity, we will talk and reflect on our individual and family feelings during
disasters or emergencies that have occurred in our community.
2. Divide the children into groups of 3-4 each.
3. Each group receives a large flip chart paper with crayons and markers. Together, they draw on the flip chart paper
a story about a disaster or emergency in their community (flood, landslide, accident, etc.). They should leave large
borders on the flip chart paper empty.
4. After drawing the story, each child draws, on the border of the paper, a symbol that indicates their feelings about
what happened.
5. Ask each group to present their pictures, describing what they have drawn and sharing their feelings about what
has happened. During presentations, the facilitator should emphasize the importance of listening to each other and
respecting each other’s feelings, creating an environment of safety among the children. Facilitators can also share
their own feelings about the same disasters as well, after the children are done presenting.
6. After all the presentations, discuss together why it’s important to share our feelings about disasters (to understand
how we are not alone, to be able to heal, to be able to prepare ourselves better for future risks); discuss who we can
share our feelings about disasters with (trusted adults in the community, trusted friends, trusted school teachers and
counsellors, trusted religious leaders, etc.); and discuss how being more prepared for disasters and understanding our
capacities and vulnerabilities in the event of a disaster can help us be better prepared and less scared.
4 Hopes, fears and expectations

(Note to facilitator: this session should be done after choosing one or more of the above icebreakers.)
1. Divide the group of children into small groups of 4-5 each. Request each group to form a small circle while seated on
the floor. (Note: if the training group is smaller, this activity can be done in plenary with the trainer facilitating the
conversation).
2. Explain to the children that each group is to choose a discussion leader and a reporter. They discuss their
expectations of the training covering disaster risk reduction. They are to write each response on a card. (Note:
for illiterate or pre-literate children, they can discuss without cards. Keep the discussion time shorter so that
the reporters can remember the points discussed. In this case, have reporters report back twice: after hopes/
expectations and after concerns).
3. Groups should discuss the following: Hopes and Expectations: What would you like to learn about? How would
you like to learn? How can your peers and facilitators best help you learn? What are your hopes of this training and
beyond? Or what do you hope to achieve in this training and after? Fears: What are your concerns or problems or
issues that you hope to be discussed in this training?
4. Give time to group leaders to share their outputs to the big group. Summarize outputs by numbering each card and
grouping similar cards together. (Note: for illiterate or pre-literate children, this part can be done verbally.)
5. In plenary, link the participants’ expectations with the training agenda and objectives. Ask the children if their
expectations can be met given the way the training has been designed. Create a ‘parking lot’ or ‘thought corner’
for the expectations that probably will not be met during the workshop; these might be addressed when discussing
future plans.
5 Ground rules: what do we need to do and not do so that we have a successful training together?
This session can be done in a number of ways.
a. With literate children, small cards can be given to each child to write down a rule that answers the above question.
Cards can then be posted on a flip chart or wall, reviewed and discussed together, and any new rules can be added to
the list as a result of the discussion.
b. With illiterate or pre-literate children, a group brainstorm and discussion can occur, and the facilitator can list the
rules discussed on a notepad. Then, children can be asked to draw a symbol that describes each of the rules they
discussed.
c. If there is little time, the facilitator can come up with 2-3 rules already pre-defined and ask the group to add to them.
If the group is literate, the rules can be written on a flip chart, if not, the children can draw a symbol for each of the
rules.
(Note to facilitator: there should not be more than 5-6 rules. Some commonly suggested rules include: listening to
each other, no interruptions, keep mobile phones on silent (where appropriate), feel free to ask questions, start on
time, end on time. It is important for ground rules to be posted in a visible area in the training room so that children
can see it and refer back to it. It is also good practice to review the ground rules on a daily basis to remind the
participants of them. Choosing one child participant to conduct that review every morning is a great way to engage
the children.)
Session II: Community Map

Session II objectives: Participants will be able to portray their community/neighbourhood from their perspective,
identifying important locations and landmarks, including settlements/residential areas, schools, government and public
buildings, infrastructures, etc. Participants will also be able to identify/define the area that their risk analysis will cover.
Session II time: Approximately 30-45 minutes
(Note to facilitators: Some training guides do this section after discussing the definitions of hazards, vulnerabilities,
risks, etc. We prefer that the community map be done before that discussion, so that the definitions relates to the
participant’s awareness of their local context– they might be able to uncover more vulnerabilities and capacities by
first considering different aspects of their community. It is helpful if the facilitator knows the community well, its key
installations and some of the hazards, perhaps having his or her own map or aerial photo, but without showing these
to the participants. If key things are forgotten by the participants, a moment of reflection on why they may have
been forgotten can be beneficial.)
Materials: Flip charts, markers, crayons and pencils
Drawing a community map

1. Use a large flipchart that has been stuck on the wall or placed on the floor where it can be easily viewed by all
participants.
2. Ask one of the participants to draw the map of their community in the flipchart and also indicate the north direction,
and the community boundaries.
3. Ask another participant to come up to the map and draw, landmarks, roads and buildings.
4. Ask a third participant to draw the schools, public and government buildings in the community.
5. Ask other participants to comment and add more information to the existing map. These can include roads, rivers,
mountains, beaches, crop fields, water facilities, etc.
6. Thank the participants after the drawing.
If there are many participants, it may be worth dividing them into groups of four to do separate maps and ensure active
participation of all people. Maps can be compared in plenary. Different maps reflect different priorities and these are worth
discussing, while being very careful not to permit judgement of those different priorities or views.
(Note to facilitators: this drawing will be revisited several times throughout the process.)
Session III: Better understanding our risks

Session III objectives: Participants will be able to define hazard, vulnerability, capacity, risk, and risk reduction through
community examples.
Session III time: 30-45 minutes
Materials needed: Very large flip chart (or several pieces of flip chart paper taped together), many smaller pieces of paper
(around A4 size or larger) crayons and markers.
(Note to facilitators: this exercise uses flooding as an example. The example can be modified to fit a more common
hazard to your local context.)
1. In plenary, facilitator places the very large flip chart paper on the ground and distributes crayons to all the participants
(each participant should have 3-4 different colours). Have the participants sit on the ground around the paper.
2. In plenary, facilitator tells the following story: Imagine a community where there is a threat of flooding from the river. In
this community, there are houses built near the riverbanks, and the farmland is also located in easily flooded areas. The
community makes most of its money from farming. The community has a school and a health centre. There is a radio
system based in the school. These are located in a high place in the community, further away from the riverbanks.
3. Divide the participants into four groups: one group draws and colours the river, one group draws the houses built
near the riverbanks, one group draws the farmland, and one group draws the school and health centre. Return to
plenary and post the picture on the wall. Take a moment to admire it together.
4. Ask the participants to sit in their four groups again. Give one A4 sized paper to each group. Ask each group to draw
the following:
a. Ask the first group to discuss and draw together a picture of what a flood would look like in this community.
b. Ask the second group to discuss and draw together a picture of what could happen to the houses and farmland
during the flood.
c. Ask the third group to discuss and draw together a picture of how the school and health centre could be used in a
flood situation.
d. Ask the fourth group to discuss and draw together a picture of how the radio system could be used in a flood
situation.
5. When the groups are finished with their drawings, ask each group to post their picture on the wall around the bigger
picture of the community.
6. In plenary, begin a discussion starting with the first two pictures. Ask the participants what they see in the two
pictures. They will most likely identify the types of losses that could occur during a flood, such as loss of property,
crops, possible loss of life. They will also identify the weaknesses of the community, with the homes near the
riverbank and easily flooded farmland. Explain that the flooding is a hazard, and the location of the houses and
farmland are vulnerabilities.
7. Based on this example, ask the children to define, in their own words, what a hazard is. Their definition should
encompass the following: A hazard is a natural occurrence, can be manmade, and causes loss. Hazards are dangers,
and are usually outside of us (i.e., a person is not a hazard). Some hazards can be prevented, and some cannot be
(facilitator can return to the previous discussion of prevention, mitigation and preparation).
8. Using a marker, facilitator (or one of the children) should write the word “hazard” on the top of the picture of
flooding drawn by the first group.
9. Looking at the second picture, ask the children to discuss what other possible weaknesses are there in this
community. Then explain that when flooding happens, this community is vulnerable.
10. Based on this example, ask the children to define, in their own words, what vulnerability is. Their definition should
encompass the following: Vulnerability is related to time – it changes (for example, floods are not ever-present).
Vulnerability depends on people – if they were not farming crops that could be damaged by floods, their livelihoods
would not be vulnerable. Vulnerabilities are weaknesses. If people in the community are not helped by their
government or their neighbours, they are more vulnerable than others, because they have less support. Vulnerability
is about people and their lives, not about places.
11. Now move on to the third and fourth pictures and ask the participants to discuss what they see in the pictures that
can help the community during a flood situation. The participants’ discussion will most likely include that the school
and health centre of the community are located in a high place and can serve as temporary shelters. They have a
radio system, so the radio system can be used to communicate when a flood happens.
12. Ask the participants to list other things that the community might have to help them during a flood situation. These
can include an early warning system that would strengthen the radio system used during flooding; the community
has an action plan when flooding occurs; some of the community members know about risk management. Explain
that these features are the capacities (or capabilities) in the community.
13. Based on this example, ask the children to define, in their own words, what capacity is. Their definition should
encompass the following: Capacity is a combination of all the strengths and resources available within a community
that can reduce the effects of a disaster. Capacity may include knowledge, skills, tools, buildings, good leaders,
services (health centres, schools). Focus the definition to capacities that are indigenous to the community and
its government as much as possible. Civil society organizations can be considered capacities, but only if they are
indigenous to the community; Plan International, for example, would not be indigenous to the community and will
not remain in that community forever.
14. Using a marker, facilitator (or one of the children) should write “capacities” on the top of both drawings.
15. Floods happen every year during the rainy season. The floods often result in damages to homes and crops, disrupt
schools and displace people. If people don’t know how to prevent floods or how to protect themselves and their
crops, they have risks.
16. Based on this example, and the terms they have learnt, ask the children what are the components that lead to risks?
The answer should be hazards (flooding) when facing a vulnerable population (homes and crops close to flood
areas) with limited capacities leads to risks (floods can destroy crops and homes). Risks only exist where there are
vulnerable people and hazards. Risks are smaller if we know how to protect ourselves.
17. Based on this example, ask the children, how can this community use their capacities to reduce risks? Answers can
include that community members should try to move their homes to the higher places. They might suggest that the
community farm different crops so that they won’t lose them when floods happen (e.g. fruit from trees). They might
also suggest that the community members that know about risk management share their knowledge with the rest of
the community to think about ideas for reducing the losses of crops during flooding.
18. Referring back to the pictures the participants have drawn, the facilitator explains that a disaster is a serious
disruption of the functioning of a society, causing widespread human, material, or environmental losses, which
exceed the ability of the affected society to cope using only its own resources. A disaster is a function of the risk
process. It results from the combination of hazards, conditions of vulnerability and insufficient capacity or measures
to reduce the potential negative consequences of risk. Disaster can happen in a society if it is vulnerable to a
particular hazard and the existing capacity is low and is not prepared to cope with the hazard.
19. The facilitator explains that disaster risk reduction is the way we work to reduce vulnerabilities and disaster risks
throughout a society, to avoid or to limit the adverse impacts of hazards.
20. Conclude the discussion with any questions the participants might have about the various definitions. If the group
of children are literate, have them write the definitions they came up with, in their own words, on flip chart paper.
The facilitator should be very clear on the UNISDR definitions of the concepts, to be able to carefully evaluate the
children’s definitions and help them correct any misunderstandings.
OPTIONAL: Transect walk

If there is time available (anywhere from an hour to a half or full day), after discussing the activity “Better Understanding
our Risks”, participants can take a transect walk around their community or neighbourhood, and then return to complete
the community map they created in Session II. Additional parental consent for this activity might be necessary, and the
adults accompanying the children on the walk should adhere to their organization or agency’s child protection policies (see
First Module - Annex 8 for Plan International’s Child Protection Policy).
To conduct a transect walk, look at the current map drawn and decide with the children what path they would like to take
on the walk. Decide together what they would like to look for during their walk, and who they might like to interview
or ask questions to during the walk. During the walk, have the children take paper and pencils with them to note any
observations that they make, indicating the distance of their observation from their starting point. If the children would like
to take a detour or depart from their original path, ensure that all the children are together.
To ensure child protection, especially in hazard prone areas, it would be appropriate to take several adults with you during
the transect walk to join the children with mobile phones. Each adult should be responsible for a named and listed group
of children, regularly checking that all are together. Facilitators can pose questions to trigger children’s observations of
hazardous locations and capacities in the communities. It is best if all of the accompanying adults have facilitated transect
walks before, know how to use probing questions to stimulate the children’s thoughts, and can identify important
observations that the children may (quite casually) make. When you return, debrief the walk and have the children add to
the map they created in Session II.
Some example debriefing questions:
• What were the conditions like in different areas (dry, muddy, slippery, dangerous, dirty, unsanitary etc)?
• What were the houses like in different areas (e.g. type and quality of construction)?
• Are there some areas that are far from key facilities such as schools, shops or health centres, or hard to access (e.g.
due to steep pathways)?
• Do people interact differently in different areas?
• Are there some areas of the community where there are people they do not know (e.g. along the main road)?
• Were there any areas that the participants did not want to go into? Note that if a marginalised (e.g. immigrant)
population lives near the community, some probing may be required to persuade participants to open up and talk
about how they felt walking near to that area of the community;
• Are different people associated with different areas (e.g. the area where there are street children, the area where
people say there is a lot of crime, the area where the farmland is etc)?
• Which parts of the community to children like most? Why?
• Which parts of the community to children dislike most? Why?
• Are there any parts of the community that the participants strongly associate with particular hazards?

Debriefing questions provided by Dan Stohart, Plan Dominican Republic.
Session IV: Hazard Identification

Session IV objectives: Participants will identify the hazards in their community. If working with children in school, it
might be good to start with identifying hazards within and around their school, then working their way outwards to the
community.
(Notes to the facilitator: during this session, it may be a good idea for the facilitator to have a list of hazards on hand
to refer to. Do not just give this list to the children; have the children come up with their list, and if there is anything
missing, complete their list through querying on recent hazards that have occurred in their community).
Session IV time: Approximately 30 minutes

Materials: Community Map prepared in Session II, large cards, markers, and flip charts.
1. Bring out the Community Map developed by the children and also an empty flipchart and then stick it on the wall or
place it on the floor where all participants can see it. Also bring out a copy of the pictures that were drawn during
session II.
2. Review the definition of hazards that was discussed in session III above. This can be done by asking a few children to
share what they remember, and refer to the pictures they drew during session III.
3. Create a competition where each participant is asked to write down (or draw pictures) on the large cards of one
hazard in the community/neighbourhood (refer to the Community Map). Each participant is asked to race with the
others and place the large cards in the empty flipchart, where participants are challenged to write down different
hazards from the ones that have been placed in the flipchart.
4. After the children have exhausted adding hazards to the flip chart, facilitator can probe for more by asking about
recent events, etc. Facilitator can use the below list (as appropriate) to help probe for more hazards that the children
might confront.
List of possible hazards for facilitator’s use:
• Cyclone • Road accident

• Flood • Hostage / kidnapping
• Fire • Act of terror / war
• Chemical accident • Volcano eruption
• Stampede • Earthquake
• Civil disturbance • Monsoon
• Medical emergency • Social – abuse, violence, alcoholism
• Explosive / bomb threat
Session V: Seasonal Calendar, Disaster History, and Climate Change

Session V objectives: Participants will learn about the history of disasters in their area and identify the time periods when
recurrent hazards occur.
Option 1: As a take-home assignment

As a take-home assignment, participants are asked to investigate the history of disasters that ever struck the community
and to find out the period when a hazard usually strikes. As homework, the participants can explore and discuss with
other parties or resource persons (parents, grandparents, teachers, friends, siblings, community/religious leaders, from
newspapers, from books, etc.). Doing it this way can encourage stronger relationships between the children and other
members of their community. Ask them to try to ensure they get information from adults of both sexes and take note of
who said what, to allow some later consideration of why men and women may have different views.
Materials: Seasonal Calendar and Disaster History (found in First Module - Annex 2 and 3), Flipcharts, markers, Worksheet
template (found in First Module - Annex 2 and 3)
1. Share the worksheet of the seasonal calendar and disaster history with each participant.
2. As homework: Ask the participants to investigate and fill in information according to the worksheet.
3. As homework: Participants are also to fill in the source of information.
4. On the next day or on the agreed time, all participants bring the homework and present to other participants.
5. Facilitator should debrief the results with the participants by asking them to review and synthesize the information
they have gathered, and together create one common seasonal calendar for the group.
Option 2: The Seasonal Calendar as a group activity during the training

1. Participants will still do, as their homework, the disaster history, interviewing their families and other community members.
2. Coming back together the next day, participants share what they learned about their disaster history, and draw a
common timeline of the disaster history of their community.
3. Then, participants work together to create the Seasonal Calendar, using the information gathered from the disaster
history.
4. On a flip chart, the facilitator creates a list of disasters and hazards that occur in the community by asking the
children to call them out in plenary. After writing the name of each type of disaster or hazard, the participants can
draw pictures or symbols on cards to attach next to each name.
5. After making the vertical list of disasters and hazards, the facilitator writes, horizontally on the same flip chart, the 12
months of the year (this may require several flip chart papers), creating a table.
6. For each hazard or disaster, one participant comes up and elicits, from the rest of the group, when during the year
this hazard or disaster most often occurs. He/she draws an “X” in the corresponding box. (See First Module - Annex
3 for an example). Continue this until the table is completed.
Option 3: As a community consultation

If more time is available, or if a community-based HVCA is being done with adults at the same time, the adults and children
can do this part together. Other informants can include specialists such as meteorologists; community leaders, farmers,
women’s groups, etc. The facilitator should brainstorm in advance with the children who should be invited to this session.
The disaster history can be expanded so that children first ask the community members about their communal history
(major events, important people, etc.) and then about their disaster history. Then, together, the children and adults can
work on the seasonal calendar. Later, the children can draw together a large poster or mural describing their communal
history and present that to the adult groups at a later date. Examples of communal history experiences include increases in
houses, decreases in trees, new roads, new schools, new health facilities, etc.
Climate Change
(Note to Facilitator: Continue with this session after choosing one or more of the above options for seasonal calendar
and disaster history).
Timing: 15-20 minutes

This session should be conducted as a debriefing session after one of the above options for the seasonal calendar and
disaster history has been conducted. The facilitator should try to run it as much like a focus group as possible, seeking out
the knowledge that participants already have and complementing that knowledge, rather than running the session as a
presentation. The more examples that come from the participants, the more real the issue will seem to them.
1. In a plenary session, ask the participants to examine their disaster history. Ask them if they have noticed any
patterns. Have the disasters got worse, more frequent, or changed over time?
2. Explain that one of the causes of disasters is climate change. Ask the participants what they already might know
about climate change and have them share their knowledge. Explain that the climate is changing due to global
warming that is happening now because of human activity. “Global warming” means that the temperature of the
earth is increasing. Depending on the interest of the children, you might decide to go further to explain the human
activity that causes global warming, such as carbon emissions from factories, automobile use, etc.
Examples:
• More intense rainy seasons;
• More intense dry seasons and/or drought where it never used to happen (e.g. southern Caribbean 2010 drought);
• More intense hurricane seasons;
• Generally more hot days and fewer cold days;
• Sea level rising in some areas;
• Consequences for the crops we can grow, the animals we can raise and therefore the availability of the kinds of
food we like to eat.
3. There are two ways to respond to the impacts of climate change: mitigation and adaptation. Explain that “mitigation”
means finding and acting on ways to stop warming the earth (ask children if they can list ways to do this – for
example, activities that reduce pollution and carbon emissions such as energy-saving light bulbs). “Adaptation”
means finding and acting on ways to lower the risks and effects of a changing climate (e.g. growing seedlings on
tables until they are strong enough to cope with heavy rainfall, then planting them in the ground).
4. Explain that in some of the next few sessions, we will be identifying adaptation activities to help us reduce the
impacts of climate change on our communities.
Climate Impacts & Adaptation (Optional Activity)

Timing: 30-45 minutes
This activity will help participants think about adaptation strategies based on relevant scenarios. It should be facilitated by
someone who understands climate change and adaptation and can be adapted to scenarios based on local impacts.
1. Split into two groups and give each group a scenario
2. The group decides what to do, putting the ideas on paper if they want
3. Each group presents their ideas to the group for discussion
GROUP 1: You live on an island and all the safe drinking water is gone. You only have access to rain water. What would you
and your family need to adapt to this problem?
GROUP 2: You are in a community situated on the side of a mountain. Landslides have destroyed your crops so there is a
food shortage. There is little money as well to send you to school. What would you and your family need to adapt to this
problem?
Session VI: Hazard Ranking

Session VI Objectives: Participants will rank hazards based on impact, frequency, and priority to address.
Session VI Timing: 30-45 minutes
Materials: Flip chart, markers, a large bag full of dried beans (or small pebbles, or grains of uncooked rice; whatever is most
culturally appropriate and readily available)
1. Divide the participants into two groups based on their gender (if a same sex group, divide into two random groups).
2. Create a large flip chart with the hazards children listed in session IV (use the pictures with illiterate or pre-literate
children to represent each hazard identified) in a column. Next to this column, create three columns titled “impact,”
“frequency,” and “priority.” See First Module - Annex 4 for an example.
3. Give each child a handful of dried beans, small pebbles, or grains of uncooked rice.
4. Ask the participants to rank each hazard based on its impact by putting as many dried beans as they want in the box
in the row of each hazard. More dried beans placed in the box, the greater the children have ranked that hazard’s
impact.
5. Ask the participants to do the same based the hazard’s frequency (which hazards occur most often).
6. Ask the participants to do the same based on the hazard’s priority to address (what they think is most important).
7. Ask each group to present their ranks to the other groups.
8. Trigger discussions by asking:
a. Is there a difference on the hazard ranking between men and women (or the two) groups?
b. Why is there a difference?
c. Can there be a consensus between men and women (or the two groups) for the hazard ranking?
9. Make sure the note taker/facilitator records all comments of the participants.
Session VII: Disaster causes and impacts

Session VII objectives: Participants will describe the causes of disasters and their impacts, including the causes and impacts
of climate change, and the links between disaster causes and risk reduction/prevention efforts.
Session VII timing: 30-45 minutes
Materials: Disasters Causes and Impacts template-chart (First Module - Annex 5), Flipcharts, and Markers
1. Divide the participants into groups. Each group consists of 4-6 people. It is better if the groups are also separated by
gender if both genders are participating in the training.
2. Show the participants the format of Disaster Causes and Impacts table, and then ask the participants to create a
similar table on flipchart paper and then fill the table. If the children are illiterate or pre-literate, they can be asked to
draw or the facilitator should bring in note takers to take notes on the comments of each group. Participants should
refer to the hazards identified as the top 5 priority of hazards that need to be addressed (that was done in Hazard
Ranking in Session VI).
3. Ask each group to present to the rest of the participants. The facilitator should complement missing information by
asking open-ended questions. These questions should help lead to the participants understanding how natural and
man-made factors are inter-linked. The discussion should also cover the impact disasters have on children’s rights to
health, education, safety, and protection, as well as its impacts on parents’ livelihoods, etc.
4. Thank the participants for their presentation.
Session VIII: Vulnerability Identification

Session VIII objectives: Participants will identify and analyze vulnerabilities in their communities.
Session VIII timing: Approximately 20-30 minutes
Materials: Large cards, Marker, Community Map, Plastic sheeting, marker to write on plastic
1. Display 3-5 flip chart pages, each with one of the top hazards ranked in session VI written or drawn on the top
portion.
2. Review with the participants the meaning of “vulnerability” that was discussed in Session III.
3. Create a competition where each participant is asked to write down on large cards the vulnerable groups, location,
families, or society for each hazard posted. Each participant is asked to race with the others and place the large cards
in the empty flipchart with participants challenged to write down different vulnerabilities from the ones that have
been placed in the flipcharts.
4. Place the community map on the wall or floor where all participants can see it.
5. Place a plastic sheet on top of the community map.
6. Ask the participants to draw the vulnerability in the community by using the marker on the plastic sheet.
7. Trigger discussions with the following questions:
a. Why are they identified as vulnerable/ fragile/ weak?
b. What is their capacity in preventing disasters? Or what is their role in disaster prevention? (The facilitator should
seek out answers relating to human capacity – knowledge, skills, institutions, relationships - and not just resources
which are usually more easily identified. The objective is to support participants to learn that they can develop
their own capacities without waiting for external actors to come and build health centres or distribute tools.)
Session IX: Transforming vulnerabilities into capacities and identifying prevention,

preparation, and mitigation activities
Session IX Objectives: Participants will be able to identify the ways in which the vulnerabilities identified can be
transformed into capacities for mitigating, preparing for, or preventing disasters. The participants will also identify which of
their actions are prevention actions, and which are preparation and mitigation actions.
Session IX Timing: 45-60 minutes
Materials: Flip chart paper, markers, large cards (including sets of cards in three different coloured cards).
Opening activity:
1. Ask for two volunteers: one will play the role of a cat and one of a mouse. The volunteers stand in front of the room
and enact the following dialogue (they should rehearse it together before they start the game):
CAT: Mouse, Mouse!
MOUSE: What do you want, you robber cat?
CAT: I want to eat you!
MOUSE: Eat me if you can!
CAT: Are you fat?
MOUSE: Until the end of my tail!
Then the cat begins to chase the mouse.
2. After the game, discuss the following questions:
• What is the hazard to the mouse? Answer: The cat
• What are the capabilities and strengths of the mouse? Example: it runs fast
• What makes the mouse vulnerable? Example: it is small.
• How can the mouse be less vulnerable? Example: asking for help, building obstacles or barriers
• What is the risk to the mouse if the cat catches it? Example: it will be eaten
• What can we do to protect the mouse? Example: build a wall between them, put a leash on the cat.
Transforming vulnerabilities into capacities:

3. Return to the list of hazards and vulnerabilities that were ranked in Session VI and identified in Session VIII. Divide
the group into 3-5 groups, with each group assigned a different hazard.
4. Each group takes the hazard and the list of vulnerabilities for each hazard and then discusses, for each vulnerability,
what actions can be taken to transform the vulnerabilities into capacities in the same way they identified the
capacities of the mouse to make it less vulnerable. If the children are literate, they can use a flip chart to list each
action discussed.
5. Each group then presents their list of actions in plenary. The other participants can share any additional ideas they
have with each group that presents. Note-takers should record the discussion.
Identifying prevention, mitigation, and preparation activities:

6. Facilitator explains the following:
• Prevention and mitigation activities: All action which avoids the possibility of a risk being created and to minimize
the impact of risk by protecting, reinforcing, rehabilitating, or reconstructing (e.g., prevention activities include
not building in hazardous areas, building flood containment walls; mitigation activities include putting straps on
the roof to stop it blowing away during a hurricane).
• Preparation activities: All action which strengthens the capacity of the community to respond efficiently and
effectively when an emergency takes place (e.g. emergency drills).
7. In advance, facilitator will have prepared two different colours of cards – one colour representing prevention and
mitigation activities, and one colour representing preparation activities.
8. Distribute the cards to the participants – each participant should have one of each colour.
9. The facilitator reads out each action identified in step 5 and gives the participants 5 seconds to raise one of the
two colours to decide whether the action is a prevention and mitigation activity or a preparation activity. If there is
confusion or no consensus, discuss it together – an activity may contain several components that include prevention,
preparation and mitigation.
Note to facilitator: If the facilitator can try to identify prevention, mitigation and preparedness examples from the
community in advance of this session, this will help participants understand the concepts. The transect walk may be
one opportunity to do that.
Session X: Stakeholder Mapping and Influencing

Session X objectives: Participants will identify the actors and institutions involved in disaster prevention and mitigation or
preparation and how they can be influenced to help reduce disaster risks.
(Note to facilitator: For their protection, it is extremely important that individual opinions expressed by the children
during this discussion remain completely confidential. For more on this issue, see the “Best Interests of the Child”
section in the “Purpose of this Manual” chapter. )
Session X timing: 30 -45 minutes

Materials: Large cards, flipcharts, and markers.
1. Participants are divided into groups. Each group should be between 4-6 people and can be separated by gender if
the group is mixed gender.
2. Create a competition where each participant is asked to write down or draw on the large cards one influential person
or group (actor/stakeholder) (good or bad) in the community/neighbourhood. Each participant is asked to race
against the others and place the large cards in the empty flipchart while other participants are challenged to write
down different stakeholders from the ones that have been placed in the flipchart.
3. Create an XY (Cartesian) diagram where the axis represents the character of the influential person/group, either
good, bad, or neutral, and the ordinate represent role of the actor in the institution, either high, medium, or low. (see
First Module - Annex 6)
4. Ask the participants to place the influential person/group that have been identified into the diagram.
5. Ask each group to also include children’s role, boys' and girls’, in the community.
6. Ask each group to present their work to other participants.
7. Compare the work of the male group and the female (or of the two groups if the training is same-gender).
a. Is there a difference between the work of the two groups? Can there be a consensus between them?
b. What is common about the work of the two groups?
c. Which of the stakeholders identified are possible for us to reach?
d. How can we influence some of these stakeholders to work with us to reduce risks?
Possible key actors/influential persons/groups can include:
• Other children • Radio stations/ media

• Parents • Disaster management committee
• Teachers • Mayor or other elected officials
• Families near vulnerable areas • Government employees
• School Administrators • Church, mosque, temple leader
• Health Workers • Managers of companies or businesses
• Women’s groups • Workers in those companies or businesses
• Farmer’s groups • Other CSOs
Session XI: Conclusion and Evaluation

Session XI: Participants will be able to identify their next steps in DRR and evaluate their DRR training session.
Session XI timing: 30-45 minutes
Materials: Flip charts, markers, 5 different coloured large cards
1. Identifying next steps. This session will vary based on the types of next steps that the organization/agency plans to
take with the children. Next steps can include supporting action planning for the priorities identified in the previous
sessions through advocacy, seed grants, or peer education, or other activities. See the “next steps” section below for
further information.
2. Evaluation.
a. For literate children: Refer to the hopes, fears, and expectations identified in the first session. Turn any negative
statements (such as, I am afraid I won’t understand DRR) to positive statements (I now understand DRR). List the
statements on a flip chart in one column. Then create five more columns, each with a different face: a smiling face,
a partially smiling face, a neutral face, a partially sad face, and a sad face. Ask all the children to walk up to the flip
chart and put a check mark under the column with the face that most accurately describes how they feel about
each statement. See First Module - Annex 7 for an example.
b. For illiterate or pre-literate children: Distribute five different coloured cards to each child, and on each colour,
draw a different face: a smiling face, a partially smiling face, a neutral face, a partially sad face, and a sad face.
Using the same list as in part a, read the statement out loud, and ask the children to raise the card that most
describes their feelings about that statement. Have a note taker keep score on a flip chart on the number of
different faces for each statement.
Lead a discussion with the children after the evaluation. Possible discussion questions include:
1. Some statements have many “smile” faces. What helped us to reach that?
2. Some statements have other faces. How could we improve our training for next time?
3. What did you enjoy the most from this training?
4. What do you want to learn more about after this training?
Other optional participatory evaluation activities:
a. Ask the children to create a quiz of all the concepts they learned. Then administer the quiz.
b. Ask the children to create a 10 minute sketch that covers the main concepts and issues they’ve covered during the
training.
c. Ask the children to create interview questions to help them determine the success of the training. Then ask them
to interview each other
Thank the children for participating in this training. Distribute completion certificates or small gifts for them to remember
their experience (e.g. candies or something culturally appropriate).
Next steps
Once the DRR training with HVCA on children is completed, there are many opportunities to integrate the children’s
expressed views. What follows is a list of possible DRR program activities that can be conducted. Further resources on these
activities, as well as a framework and tools for how to plan, monitor and evaluate them, can be found in this toolkit.
1. Integrating children’s views in a community disaster preparedness plan. If a community is putting together a disaster
preparedness plan, the DRR training on HVCA with children can inform the overall community disaster preparedness
plan.
When local governing bodies have spaces open for engagement with citizens on disaster management, the regular
use of the child-centred HVCA can be a form of social development monitoring. A child centred DRR program
could thus include working with children in either children’s groups or schools to conduct HVCAs, and working with
local governance to ensure that children’s findings are regularly integrated into disaster management planning and
implementation. Ensuing opportunities to conduct HVCAs with children then become an opportunity to monitor the
progress that the responsible actors have taken to reduce risks and vulnerabilities to disasters in those communities.
If spaces for the integration of children’s voices do not exist, see the Fourth Module – Advocacy with Children on
DRR.
2. Integrating children’s views in a school disaster risk reduction and preparedness plan. Alongside the views of teachers
and other school administrators, the result of the child-centred HVCA can be a main source for creating a school’s
disaster preparedness plan.
3. Small scale projects using seed grants. Children who have completed the DRR training can be provided with small
grants to implement some of the actions they identified during the training. These seed grants can be empowering
for children as it gives them the opportunity to take some direct action, making them feel less like powerless victims
in the event of hazards. In addition, the results of the small scale projects can often be used to make the case to
adults that children’s views are important contributions to community resilience. More information on this can be
found in Module Four: Action Planning with Children on DRR.
P lan Philippines has shown several examples of children affecting change through small
projects to implement their ideas for reducing risks. Children’s groups have implemented
a number of DRR interventions as part of this support for their DRR action plans. These have
included: hazardous rocks removal and local drainage system in Alibog, Magsaysay, (Mindoro
Occidental); establishment of tree nursery and tree planting in Paraiso (Masbate); Mangrove
protection in Boro Boro, ride-a-bike-to-school campaign in Liloan and San Francisco (Southern
Leyte); and a coastal clean-up campaign in San Francisco.
4. Conducting DRR advocacy and awareness-raising. If it is safe for children to do so, children can continue to conduct
advocacy for the actions that they have identified with the stakeholders who are responsible. Activities such as
participatory video can be excellent tools for this. If it is not safe, children’s opinions can be shared with adult groups
who can then advocate on the basis of what the children have said. In addition, if it is safe for them to do so, children
can lead important awareness raising activities with their families and communities that change behaviours to reduce
risk—which is another form of advocacy. More information about this can be found in Fourth Module – Advocacy
with Children on DRR.
P lan Bangladesh’s DRR work shows a successful example of the use of HVCAs in advocacy.
Between September 2007 and February 2009, Plan worked in 10 Unions of Hatibandha
Upazila, an area consisting of 62 communities with a population of 203,300 people. Six of
those Unions were flood-prone. Through a partnership with POPI, a national NGO and in
collaboration with local government and national DRR stakeholders, children conducted HVCAs
that were then integrated into the Union DRR risk assessments and plans. Subsequently, these
were consolidated at the Upazila level to produce a DRR plan inclusive of children’s issues.
The project also established a series of linked structures to facilitate children’s representation
and their participation in DRR at the community, school, Union and Upazila levels. At the
national level, Plan successfully lobbied for the inclusion of children in the Union Disaster
Management Committees in the national Standing Order on Disasters, and the inclusion of
children’s participation in the national Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme’s
(CDMP) Community Risk Assessment (CRA) manual.
5. Mainstreaming DRR. Training children on DRR using the HVCA can also be liked to an agency’s DRR mainstreaming
effort. One of the most accessible ways of mainstreaming child-centred DRR is in education programming. For
example, integrating information about DRR, climactic risks, and community based action can be done via school
curricula, the setting up of student-led DRR committees, conducting regular emergency drills and the inclusion of
contingency planning as part of annual school plans.
First Module – Annexes
First Module - Annex 1: Mind map example (provided by Plan Indonesia) 31
First Module – Annex 1: Mind map

example (provided by Plan Indonesia)
Arifin
Anwar
Linda
Diamond Maya
Hasan
Together
in
Harmony
Landslides
Venomous Playing
football
Floods
Snakes Cassava
Zack
Curshaw
Farmers
Student
Corn
5th Grade 17 years Zack
old Rice
5 family
members
First Module – Annex 2: Seasonal Calendar Example Worksheets 32
First Module – Annex 2: Seasonal

Calendar Example Worksheets
From Plan Indonesia:
Months
Type of Source of
No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Impacts
Risks info
From Plan El Salvador:

First Module – Annex 3: Disaster History Example Worksheets 33
First Module – Annex 3: Disaster History

Example Worksheets
From Plan Indonesia:
Disaster History
Source of
No. Year Disaster Impact
Information
Closing question: Have you noticed any patterns in the past years? Have disasters gotten worse, more frequent, or better
and less frequent? Have you made any other observations about disasters and hazards in the past few years?
First Module – Annex 4: Hazard Ranking Flip Chart Example 34
First Module – Annex 4: Hazard Ranking

Flip Chart Example
Hazard Impact Frequency Priority to address
Hazard 1
Hazard 2
Hazard 3
Hazard 4
Hazard 5
First Module – Annex 5: Disaster Causes and Impacts Worksheet (from Plan Indonesia) 35
First Module – Annex 5: Disaster Causes

and Impacts Worksheet (from Plan
Indonesia)
Disaster Cause and Impacts
Group name:
How do you
Type of Cause of Impact of Prevention Who is influence
hazards disaster disaster measures involved? those
involved?
First Module – Annex 6: Stakeholder Diagram 36
First Module – Annex 6: Stakeholder

Diagram
For illiterate or pre-literate children, symbols can be used in place of words.

Some suggested symbols:
• High Influence: OO
• Medium Influence: OX
• Low Influence: XX
• Good/Positive Influence: ++
• Neutral Influence: +-
• Bad/Negative Influence: - -
First Module – Annex 7: Evaluation chart example 37
First Module – Annex 7: Evaluation chart

example
First Module – Annex 8: Plan International’s Child Protection Policy (as of 2010) 38
First Module – Annex 8: Plan

International’s Child Protection
Policy (as of 2010)
Child Protection Policy
Say ‘YES!’ To Keeping Children Safe
Summary / Purpose
As an international child-centred community development organisation whose work is underpinned by the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), Plan is committed to promoting the rights of children including their right
to be protected from harmful influences, abuse and exploitation. Plan takes active measures to ensure children’s rights to
protection are fully realised.
Plan acknowledges its expectation that its employees and others who work with Plan have children’s best interests at the
heart of their involvement with Plan.
This Child Protection Policy is Plan’s statement of intent that demonstrates our commitment to safeguarding children
from harm and makes clear to all in the organisation and who come into contact with us what is required in relation to the
protection of children, and that child abuse in any form is unacceptable to Plan.
A. Plan’s vision for child protection.

Vision
We aim to create ‘child safe’ environments, both internally and externally, where children are respected, protected,
empowered and active in their own protection, and where Staff are skilled, confident, competent and well supported in
meeting their protection responsibilities.
Statement
Plan is committed to actively safeguarding children from harm and ensuring children’s rights to protection are fully realised.
We take seriously our responsibility to promote child safe practices and protect children from harm, abuse, neglect and
exploitation in any form. In addition, we will take positive action to prevent child abusers from becoming involved with
Plan in any way and take stringent measures against any Plan Staff and/or Associate who abuses a child. Our decisions and
actions in response to child protection concerns will be guided by the principle of ‘the best interests of the child’.
B. Definitions under the Child Protection Policy

1. A child is defined as any person under the age of 18 years.
2. Child Abuse is defined as all forms of physical abuse, emotional ill-treatment, sexual abuse and exploitation, neglect
or negligent treatment, commercial or other exploitation of a child and includes any actions that result in actual or
potential harm to a child.
Child abuse may be a deliberate act or it may be failing to act to prevent harm. Child abuse consists of anything
which individuals, institutions or processes do or fail to do, intentionally or unintentionally, which harms a child or
damages their prospect of safe and healthy development into adulthood.
3. Child Protection, within the scope of this policy, is defined as the responsibilities, measures and activities that Plan
undertakes to safeguard children from both intentional and unintentional harm.
C. Scope of the Child Protection Policy

The Child Protection Policy applies to everyone working for or associated with Plan. It encompasses the whole of Plan and
includes without limitation:
1. Staff at all levels – the field, National Organisations and International Headquarters.
2. Plan Associates – these include board members (International and National Boards), volunteers, community
volunteers, sponsors, consultants and contractors. Also the staff and/or representatives of partner organisations and
local governments who have been brought into contact with children or are party to Plan child sensitive data while
working for or with Plan.
3. Plan Visitors – (e.g. donors, journalists, media, researchers, celebrities etc) who may come into contact with children
through Plan are also bound by this policy.
D. Responsibilities under the Child Protection Policy

Plan Staff, Associates and Visitors must:
1. Never abuse and/or exploit a child or act/behave in any way that places a child at risk of harm.
2. Report any child abuse and protection concerns they have in accordance with applicable local office procedures. This
is a mandatory requirement for Staff. Failure to do so may result in disciplinary action.
3. Respond to a child who may have been abused or exploited in accordance with applicable local office procedures.
4. Cooperate fully and confidentially in any investigation of concerns and allegations.
5. Contribute to an environment where children are respected and encouraged to discuss their concerns and rights.
6. Always ask permission from children (or, in the case of young children, their parent or guardian) before taking images
(e.g. photographs, videos) of them. Respect their decision to say no to an image being taken. Ensure that any images
taken of children are respectful (For example: children should have adequate clothing that covers up the sexual
organs. Images of children in sexually suggestive poses or that in any way impact negatively on their dignity or
privacy are not acceptable). Stories and images of children should be based on the child’s best interest.
7. Be aware that where concerns exist about the conduct of Staff or Associates in relation to child protection and/or
where there has been a breach of the Child Protection Policy, this will be investigated under this policy either: by
consideration of referral to statutory authorities for criminal investigation under the law of the country in which they
work; and/or by Plan in accordance with disciplinary procedures. This may result in disciplinary sanctions and/or
dismissal for Staff.
Be aware that Plan will sever all relations with any Plan Associate or Visitor who is proven to have committed child
abuse.
8. Be aware that, if a legitimate concern about suspected child abuse is raised, which proves to be unfounded on
investigation, no action will be taken against the reporter. However, any employee who makes false and malicious
accusations will face disciplinary action.
Be aware that Plan will take appropriate legal or other action against Plan Associates and Visitors who make false and
malicious accusations of child abuse.
Plan Staff must not:

9. Disclose information that identifies sponsored families or children or make it available to the general public unless
that disclosure is in accordance with standard Plan policies and procedures.
Plan Associates and Visitors must not:

10. Disclose information that identifies sponsored families or children or make it available to the general public without
explicit consent from Plan.
All Country, Regional and National Directors must:

11. Ensure that each Plan country has in place local procedures that are consistent with the global Child Protection Policy
and with the document Reporting and Responding to Child Protection Issues in Plan to respond to incidents of child
abuse. Local procedures should be developed with assistance of local advisers in accordance with the local law. Any
deviation from the global policy must have prior formal approval from the relevant Regional Director or National
Director.
Ensure that local procedures are made available in local languages.
E. Personal Conduct Outside Work

We are committed to ensuring that our Staff and representatives apply high standards of behaviour towards children within
both their professional and their private lives.
Plan does not intend to dictate the belief and value systems by which Plan employees conduct their personal lives. Plan’s
position throughout the world is dependent, however, on maintaining good relations and upholding its reputation as a
child-focused community development organisation with numerous countries and organisations. Unlawful or other conduct
by Plan employees which jeopardises Plan’s reputation or position whether during or after business hours will not be
permitted. Such conduct includes, but is not limited to: any unlawful activity related to sexual abuse; any other unlawful
activity; sexual harassment; physically/verbally abusive behaviour; and public disorderly conduct.
Staff and Associates are required to bear in mind the principles of the Child Protection Policy and heighten their
awareness of how their behaviour may be perceived both at work and outside work.
Additional references
• United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
• Plan’s Mission, Vision and Attributes
• Plan’s Strategic Directions
• Plan’s Program Principles & Domains Guidelines
• Plan’s Position papers on related program issues (e.g. Child Trafficking)
• Plan’s Policy on Children in Special Circumstances
• Plan’s Sponsorship Book including NO Section of the Sponsorship Book
• Plan’s Sponsorship Standards
• Plan’s recruitment, induction, training and development policies and procedures
• Plan’s Code of Conduct and Whistle Blowing Policy
• Data Protection & Privacy Law
Second Module – Planning, Monitoring

and Evaluating Child Centred Disaster
Risk Reduction Programmes: Framework
and Tools
Second Module – Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating Child Centred Disaster Risk Reduction Programmes: Framework and Tools 42
About this Module

This section of Plan International’s Child-Centred Disaster Risk Reduction Toolkit contains a framework, guidelines and tools
for planning, monitoring, and evaluating child-centred DRR programmes at the national or local level. It includes:
• Understanding the Child Centred DRR Planning, Monitoring, and Evaluation framework:
1. The conceptual explanation of the framework that can be used to plan, monitor and evaluate child-centred DRR
programmes
2. Definitions of DRR levels and dimensions of change, and child-centred DRR outcomes.
3. Child centred DRR Outcomes and Indicators
• Guidelines for Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating with children: This section of the module provides important
considerations for planning, monitoring and evaluating with children, including references to additional sources for
ethics and guidelines.
• Tools for Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating a DRR programme:
a. How to conduct a child centred DRR situation analysis, with children and with adults
b. How to ensure child centred DRR is integrated in your Country Programme Strategy and Programme Outlines
c. How to conduct a DRR baseline study for child centred DRR projects
d. How to design a Child Centred DRR project using a log frame,
e. How to design a Child Centred DRR project using outcome mapping
f. How to use the child-centred HVCA for evaluation,
g. How to plan a final evaluation for child centred DRR – what questions to include in your terms of reference (TOR),
h. How to write a child centred DRR case study
Introduction, purpose and use of this module

As discussed in other modules of this toolkit, children, who are most affected by disasters and climate change, have the
right to participate in the governance decisions related to disaster management and climate change adaptation. Children’s
participation in those decisions results in better decisions, higher quality services, greater access to those services, and
better development outcomes as a result of those services. Children’s participation in disaster risk reduction results in more
disaster resilient communities and reduced risks for all members of the community, not just children.
In order to assess the impact and value added of children’s participation in disaster risk reduction and management,
Plan International has created a monitoring and evaluation framework that maps out the changes we are aiming to
achieve in implementing a child-centred DRR programme. We have also developed a toolkit of resources to support Plan
programme offices with the planning, implementation and M&E of a child-centred DRR programme. The toolkit presents:
a) participatory methods to be used with children for monitoring and evaluating DRR programmes at the local level, and b)
methods to facilitate a DRR program evaluations by Plan staff.
Monitoring and evaluating DRR programmes can take place at two levels:
1. participatory monitoring and evaluation of community based DRR programmes by its beneficiaries and stakeholders
(social development monitoring); and
2. the monitoring and evaluation of DRR programmes as initiated and managed by non-governmental organizations.

Social development monitoring (SDM), “entails periodic observation and action by socially disadvantaged groups or citizens for ensuring efficient service delivery and
promoting responsiveness and accountability of governance situations” (Anand, 2002, p. 3). For more information and a case study on SDM in education, see Anand, P.
(2002). Experiences in Streamlining the Functioning of Bal Shramik Vidyalayas in Jamtara. New Delhi: Society for Participatory Research in Asia.
The tools provided in this module are primarily for the second level - for non-governmental and community organizations
needing to monitor and evaluate their child-focused DRR programme interventions. However, many of the tools described
here can also be used for participatory/social development monitoring of community-based, child-centred disaster
management. This includes periodic assessments conducted by communities (including disadvantaged groups of citizens)
of risks and vulnerabilities and reviews of disaster preparedness and response plans. It is important to include children in
participatory/social development monitoring activities.
The ultimate goal of any NGO-initiated child-centred DRR programme should be that children’s views are regularly
incorporated in the review of their community’s risks and vulnerabilities, and the decisions made to address these. Thus,
NGOs implementing child-centred DRR, in implementing their project management M&E work, should ensure full and
appropriate engagement of children.
Understanding the Child Centred Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Framework

Planning, monitoring and evaluating child-centred DRR work requires a conceptual framework that draws a big picture
of the program’s desired outcomes and changes, and links these to planned activities. The two important components of
this framework are the DRR Levels and Dimensions of Change and the Child-centred DRR Outcomes. Describing the
outcomes of child-centred DRR work according to this framework help us to understand the key conditions, activities, and
initiatives that lead to the sustained strengthening of communities’ resilience to disasters.
This framework was built on the experiences generated from the implementation of Plan’s Disaster Risk Reduction and
Governance programmes during 2006-2010. It is being continuously used in countries where Plan is now mainstreaming,
implementing, and expanding child-centred DRR. These experiences have included the development of the “Characteristics
of a Disaster Resilient Community,” an inter-agency commissioned document by Dr. John Twigg. Plan then validated
the “Characteristics” in the countries and communities where its DRR programme was being implemented, to adapt
their applicability to a child-centred disaster risk reduction approach. Consultations with six countries, combined with a
comprehensive mid-term review of Plan’s global child-centred DRR programme, led to the development of this framework.
DRR Levels and Dimensions of Change
T he desired outcomes of a child centred DRR programme fall under two categories:
“Democratic Outcomes” - the benefits that relate to a deepening of democratic processes to improve transparency,
accountability and participatory disaster management governance, which in particular is supportive of young citizens’
engagement and wellbeing, and
“Development Outcomes” - the benefits at individual and societal level in regards to well being in support of
disaster resilience, which reflect behavioural, institutional and societal changes that take place over the medium to
long term.
Under these two categories, we can describe three types of changes that should occur to achieve those outcomes. For
democratic outcomes, there are citizenship changes, institutional/systems changes, and policy changes. For development
outcomes, there are capacity changes, access to services changes, and well-being changes. Together, development and
democratic outcomes lead to the strengthening of communities’ resilience to disasters.

Mitchell, T., Tanner, T., Haynes, K. (2009). “Children as agents of change for Disaster Risk Reduction: Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines.” Working paper No.1.
London, UK; Children in a Changing Climate.

See: http://www.proventionconsortium.org/?pageid=90

The focus on behavioural changes and contributions, or progress towards, those changes, comes from the “Outcome Mapping” conceptual framework, which underpins
Plan International’s Programme Effectiveness Framework and Programme Accountability and Learning System.

These definitions are adapted from the “Advocacy for People’s Power Model,” excerpted from Tadros, Nader 2007. Advocacy: People’s Power and Participation. A
sourcebook for advocacy practitioners. PEOPLE’S ADVOCACY, Fairfax, Virginia, USA.
An effective DRR programme should contain both democratic and development outcomes. Democratic outcomes alone,
without development outcomes, can give children and communities a sense that there is no return on their investment of time,
leading at the very least to frustration, and at the worst to a sense of exploitation and a refusal to participate in the future.
Development outcomes alone, without democratic outcomes, can provide immediate support and relief, without the necessary
changes that sustain them beyond the initial work done by the NGO or the initial funding. This could also lead to frustration
and a sense of dependency on outside support, rather than community self-sufficiency and long-term development.
Democratic and development outcomes are thus described further and defined below so that when an organization begins
its child-centred DRR work, it can identify how it wants to work within both areas of outcomes. A program or project may
not necessarily contain all six types of changes as described below, but should aim for at least one type of change under
democratic outcomes, and one type of change under development outcomes.
It will become clear in the definitions and examples below that many of the changes are reliant on other, related changes,
and sometimes overlap. Thus, these definitions and examples should not be seen as hard and fast, and efforts should not be
spent over-analysing the terms and definitions. Rather, these definitions and descriptions should be used as a guide when
planning for DRR program activities and their monitoring and evaluation.
Democratic Outcomes:
The table below defines each of the changes under Democratic Outcomes:
Children and young citizens become aware of their power and rights, and use this power
Citizenship change
to effectively participate in decision making processes that reduce risks.
Changes in the decision-making process towards more involvement of children and
Institutional or Systems
young citizens, more transparency, and more accountability of disaster management
change
mechanisms/frameworks.
Changes to laws, policies, decrees, etc. to integrate risk reduction at local, national, and/
Policy change
or international levels
Citizenship changes occur at the level of rights holders vis-à-vis duty bearers with the support of civil society. For example,
children’s DRR activities in the municipality of St. Bernard in the Philippines served to convince the municipal council of the
importance of children’s participation in disaster risk management and there are now children’s representatives on all the
village and the municipal disaster management councils. In this example, child representatives are now aware of their power
to affect change and are using that power by serving as representatives in disaster management councils at the village and
municipal levels.
Institutional or systems changes occur at the level of duty bearers, as well as at the level of civil society in its role
implementing the work of duty bearers, vis-à-vis rights holders and duty bearers and with the support of civil society. For
example, in Bangladesh, the DRR project established a series of linked structures to facilitate children’s representation
and their participation in DRR at the community, school, Union and Upazila levels. At the national level, Plan successfully
lobbied for the inclusion of children in the Union Disaster Management Committees in the national Standing Order on
Disasters, and the inclusion of children’s participation in the national Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme’s
(CDMP) Community Risk Assessment (CRA) manual. In this example, the decision-making process was changed through the
establishment of linked structures at the community, school, Union and Upazila levels and the spaces created for children’s
participation in the national Standing Order on Disasters and the national Community Risk Assessment manual.
Policy changes occur at the level of duty bearers, vis-à-vis rights holders, with the support of civil society. They often
are most sustainable when they have changed as a result of citizenship changes and institutional or systems changes. In
Bangladesh, the children’s risk assessments and DRR plans were integrated into the Union DRR risk assessments and plans,
which were then consolidated at the Upazila level to produce a DRR plan that was inclusive of the issues indentified by
children. In this case, the DRR plan is the policy that was changed so that it now includes children’s issues. Institutional
changes occurred which provided children the space to participate, and citizenship changes occurred as children were
empowered to participate and make their voices heard.
Another example in El Salvador shows a different type of policy change. In this case, Plan worked with the Ministry of
Education and all universities offering a Bachelors Degree in Education for basic education (grades 1 to 6), to include DRR
as part of the standard Bachelors’ curricula. This mandated curriculum includes mandatory courses for future teachers
on risk management, child centred DRR, the school protection plan, SPHERE and INEE minimum standards, and general
knowledge about disaster emergency and response in regards to school centres.
Development Outcomes:
The table below defines each of the changes under Development Outcomes:
increases in programme participants’ DRR knowledge, skills and abilities, as a result of training
Capacity change
programs, workshops, awareness campaigns, etc.
increase in the number of citizens accessing disaster resilient public services (e.g. education, water
and sanitation, health, and risk management) as a result of using disasters as an entry point for
Access to public
change. This refers to increases in young citizens participating in disaster risk management as an
services change
integral part of development services (e.g. HVCA and DRR action planning, and DRR awareness
raising, and wider development issues).
Resulting changes related to risk reduction and improved resilience to support sustainable
development and the realisation of child rights –e.g.: increases in child protection before/during/
Well-being
after disasters; inclusion of children of all ages, abilities, and gender; realisation of child survival
change
and development rights (reduction in diseases, loss of life, malnutrition; improved children’s
educational achievements and retention rates, etc).
Capacity changes occur on the levels of rights holders, duty bearers, and/or civil society. The following is an example of
capacity changes at the level of rights holders: In El Salvador, in early 2008, several houses in Cerco de Pedra, La Libertad,
were destroyed in a flash flood. The young people and the adult DRR committee had been trained in the establishment
and use of early warning systems utilizing pluviometers. Young children (8-12 years old) who were not members of the
community’s DRR committee were well aware of the early warning systems that had been set up to alert the community in
times of heavy rain. When asked what they should do if heavy rain started again, they said:
• First, look at the pluviometer
• Next, help people who live near the river to take things out of the house
• After that, call each other by cell phone
• Then be ready to run to evacuation areas, and
• Pray!
Capacity changes at the level of duty bearers can include teachers or government administrators increasing their work
with children and young people as a result of a training on listening to children conducted by a civil society organization.
Similarly, capacity changes at the level of civil society can include an increase in an organization’s child-centred DRR work
as a result of staff participation in a conference raising their awareness of the importance of the views of children in disaster
management.
Access to public services changes occur when citizens (as rights holders) benefit from the services being provided by
duty bearers – governments—with the support of civil society. These changes should result in an increase in citizens
benefiting from building codes enforced, environmental impact assessments climate proofing, low carbon development,
emergency drills, evacuation, HVCAs, etc. For example, in Sierra Leone, collaborating with the Office of National Security
(ONS) Plan has continued to support 11 Schools in Freetown, on the roll-out of DRR lessons to students via teacher training,
provision of learning resources and supporting a DRR quiz competition between the schools to enhance DRR learning in a
stimulating environment (55 children took part in the final round of the quiz competition). This is an example of increased
access to higher quality DRR education curricula by Sierra Leone students.
Well being changes occur when citizens (rights holders), often with the support of civil society, have a better quality of
life as a result of duty-bearers fulfilling their responsibilities. These changes are most often seen over a long term period.
One example of well-being changes was demonstrated after the February 2006 landslide which occurred in Catig, Liloan,
Philippines. There were no casualties, but the village was too dangerous for the people to stay. An evacuation site was
set up while houses were constructed in a new site with the help of the local government and donors, including Plan.
Discussion with the children revealed how stressful the evacuation had been. They said that it had been difficult to find food
as there was stealing of farm produce, the evacuation centre was chaotic, unsanitary and it was difficult to go to school.
There was an active children’s association in the village. During the evacuation period children took action and actively
helped to keep the centre clean, took care of younger children and lobbied the council to solve the sanitation problem
in the centre. They also helped to clear the relocation site. These activities led directly to the increased well being of
the children and the wider evacuated community at the evacuation site. The children say that now they are able to
live peacefully again and they feel proud because they helped to resolve their problems together with the rest of the
community. Furthermore, after receiving training on disaster preparedness, they no longer are afraid when it rains and
know what to do in case of emergency.
Another example in Indonesia demonstrates changes in support of community resilience to disasters by moving from a
reactive perspective and action into preventive perspectives. In Tanawawo, Poma and Renggarasi villages in Sikka, following
DRR capacity building, households have been reinforced with rattan and bricks for better protection for the typhoon season.
A chart organizing the information above can be found in the Second Module - Annex 1 of this section of the toolkit. In
addition, the following diagram summarizes how we see the above levels and dimensions of change working towards more
child-friendly, disaster resilient communities:
The levels and dimensions of change have informed Plan’s DRR theory of change. The following diagram organizes the
changes from the starting point of working with children and young people. A larger version of this diagram can also be
found in the Second Module - Annex 2:
This diagram describes the links between the six different types of changes, and how some changes can build upon others
to reach the desired goal: child-friendly communities resilient to disasters. Beneath each change are some of the indicators
that show these changes being made.
Child Centred DRR Theory of Change:

Young citizens have the right to participate in the decisions that affect their lives and thus they have the
right to participate in the governance of DRR ‘services’. Their participation results in better decisions, higher
quality services, greater access to those services, and better development outcomes as a result of those
services.

Monitoring, Evaluating, and Sharing Learning: Governance and Disaster Risk Reduction Programmes in Plan UK, January 2009.
Child-centred DRR Outcomes and Indicators

This element of the planning, monitoring and evaluation framework categorizes the outcomes and indicators of a child-
friendly, disaster resilient community under the five “pillars” of the Hyogo Framework of Action: governance; knowledge
and education; risk assessment and planning; risk management and vulnerability reduction; and disaster preparedness,
response and recovery. It also lists indicators for each of the five pillars according to the six dimensions of change described
above: citizenship, institutional/systems, policy, capacity, access to services, and well being). The comprehensive document
can be found in the Second Module - Annex 3. Below are shortened versions of each section in the document containing
some of the most commonly used outcomes and indicators in our work:
Governance (including participation, citizenship, democratic processes and spaces)

Child-centred Disaster-resilience outcomes Child-centred Changes and Indicators
1. Children and young people (CYPs) are formally recognised 1. Policy change: Policies are created to formally recognize CYPs
in DRR structures that enforce disaster resilience at all levels. participation/representation in DRR structures and local and
national government decision-making processes
2. There are active CYP’s organisations in the school in which 2. Access to services change: Increased number of schools with the
vulnerable girls and boys are represented that address DRR most vulnerable CYP represented that address DRR issues.
issues.
3. CYP’s and community DRR groups understand relevant 3a. Capacity change: Increase in CYPs and community DRR
DRR legislation, regulations and procedures and are aware groups’ understanding of relevant DRR legislation, regulations
of their rights and the obligation of duty holders. They lobby and procedures and increased awareness of their rights and the
external agencies on DRR plans, priorities and actions. obligation of duty holders.
3b. Citizenship change: Increase in the number of CYPs, civil
society and community groups lobbying external agencies on DRR
plans, priorities, and actions.
Knowledge and Education

Child-centred Disaster-resilience outcomes Child-centred Changes and Indicators
1. CYPs, including vulnerable girls and boys, are 1a. Access to services changes: Increased number of CYPs
knowledgeable about disaster risks and how to manage participating in school and community based DRR training and
them through school and community based training and education activities.
education activities.
1b. Capacity changes: Increased awareness among CYPs about
disaster risks and how to manage them.
1c. Institutional changes: Increased number of schools and
community bodies providing opportunities for CYPs to participate
in awareness raising activities on DRR
2. Awareness-raising campaigns on DRR have been 2. Capacity changes: Increased number of community members
conducted to the whole community with the participation and CYPs reached by DRR awareness-raising campaigns.
of CYPs using different forms of communication that are
suitable for all ages, different abilities and gender and is
culturally appropriate.
3. DRR is part of the school curriculum and is also included in 3. Institutional changes: # of schools with DRR included and
non-formal education activities. delivered in the school curriculum and # of communities with DRR
delivered via non-formal learning activities.

http://www.proventionconsortium.org/?pageid=36

An initial version of these child-centred DRR outcomes was produced by Patricia J. Ray for the programme’s Mid-Term Review.
Risk assessment and planning

Child-centred Disaster-resilience Outcomes Child-centred Changes and Indicators
1. CYPs conduct and/or participate in school, community, and 1. Access to services changes – Increase in the number of CYPs
local government hazard, vulnerability, risk and capacity conducting and/or participating in school and community HVCA
assessments. assessments.
1b. Institutional change - Increase in demonstrated support by
local and national governments to participation of children in
community based risk assessment
2. Community DRR organisations facilitate community risk, 2. Institutional changes - Increase in the number of community
hazard, vulnerability and capacity assessments: DRR organisations facilitating HVCA assessments.
a. that take account of the views of children 2a. Capacity changes – Increase in the number of HVCA
b. that take account of national hazard data and research assessments conducted taking into account the views of children
on future risks 2b. Capacity changes – Increase in the number of HVCA
c. that reflect the risks and vulnerabilities of children of all assessments conducted taking into account natural hazard data
ages, ability and gender, and research on future risks.
d. that include child protection concerns. 2c. Capacity changes – Increase in the number of HVCA
assessments conducted that reflect the risks and vulnerabilities
e. that are regularly updated of children of all ages, ability, and gender.
f. that are widely disseminated within the community and 2d. Capacity changes – Increase in the number of HVCA
to local government with the participation of CYPs. assessments that include child protection concerns.
g. results are widely known and understood by all, 2e. Institutional changes – Increase in the number of HVCA
including those at particular risk. assessments regularly updated.
2f. Institutional changes – Increase in the number of HVCA
assessments disseminated in the community and to the local
government with the participation of CYPs.
2g. Capacity changes – Increase in the number of at-risk
individuals who know and understand the results of HVCA
assessments.
3. Local government has in place and regularly reviews DRR,

preparedness and response plans that: 3. Policy change – Policy created and implemented by
local government that regularly reviews DRR preparedness
- have been developed with the participation of and response plans developed by children, address their
children vulnerabilities and rights, and are integrated into local
development plans.
- that address children’s vulnerabilities and rights.
- that are integrated into local development plans
Risk Management and Vulnerability Reduction

Child-centred Disaster-resilience Outcomes Child-centred Changes and Indicators
1. CYPs initiate or manage activities to reduce their risks 1a. Citizenship change – increase in the number of CYPs initiating or
and vulnerabilities in the school and community with managing activities to reduce their risks and vulnerabilities at school
the support of adults. and community level.
1b. Capacity change – increase in demonstrated awareness among
CYPs of actions that reduce their risk of vulnerabilities.
2. The community conducts risk management and 2a. Access to services change – increase in the number of children
vulnerability reduction activities: participating in community risk management and vulnerability
reduction activities.
- with the participation of children
2b. Well-being change – increase in community activities that
- that strengthen children’s rights before, during and strengthen children’s rights within disaster context.
after disasters
2c. Institutional change – # of communities with development
- that are integrated into community development activities integrating risk management and risk reduction
activities. interventions.
- CSOs mainstream disaster risk management 2d. Institutional change –# of CSOs with development programmes
and vulnerability reduction into their development that integrate risk management and vulnerability reduction activities
programmes 3. Policy change - # of local government development programmes
integrating risk management and vulnerability reduction activities
Disaster Preparedness, Response and Recovery

Child-centred Disaster-resilience Child-centred Changes and Indicators
1. CYPs, including vulnerable girls and boys, participate in 1. Access to services change – increase in the number of CYPs
preparedness activities in the school and community in participating in preparedness activities.
accordance with the identified hazards, vulnerabilities
and risks.
2. CYPs participate in the establishment of adequate and 2. Citizenship change – increase in the number of CYPs participating
appropriate Early Warning Systems that are based in the establishment and maintaining of adequate and appropriate
on local realities and that are known by the whole early warning systems.
community.
3. Evacuation routes and emergency shelters are identified, 3. Well-being changes – increase in community members including
maintained and known by the whole community and CYPs aware of and with greater access to evacuation routes and
can be used safely by children and other at-risk groups. emergency shelters.
4. The community is able to implement their disaster 4a. Capacity change – # of communities with demonstrated ability
response plans, which are supported by effective, timely to implement disaster response plans supported by effective,
emergency response services, based on internationally timely emergency response services (in line with INEE and SPHERE
recognised minimum standards that reach all affected standards).
community members and are prioritised according to
the need. 4b. Well-being change – increase in #/percentage of affected
community members reached by emergency response services.
4c. Well-being change – increase in child protection services
provided in emergencies (child friendly spaces, psychosocial support,
education in emergencies)
4d. Well-being change – decreased loss of life, damage to livelihoods
and assets, and disease.
5. Local government prioritises the concerns of CYPs in 5. Policy change or Institutional change – policy is created or space is
disaster preparedness, response and recovery activities. created mandating local government to prioritise concerns of CYPs in
disaster preparedness, response and recovery activities.
In addition the realisation of each of the child centred DRR outcomes and change indicators needs to consider the following
cross cutting issues:
• Organizational role: To what extent has your organization contributed to these changes?
• Child Centeredness: To what extent do changes affect children (positively or negatively)?
• Best interests of the child: Have there been any negative impacts on children?
• Non-discrimination and inclusion: Who benefits from the changes? Who doesn’t? Why? (With special attention to
gender, disability, age, cultural diversity and vulnerability
• Environmental impact: Have the changes impacted positively or negatively on the environment?
• Sustainability: To what extent will the changes be sustained, how resilient is the change?
How to use the Child Centred Outcomes and Change Indicators Tool
Organizations interested in implementing child-centred DRR programs can select from the list of outcomes provided the
ones that are most strategic for them, or that best suit their context and available resources. These can be used for planning
(i.e. in project design, proposal development) and for monitoring and evaluation (i.e. in developing baselines, validating
theories of change, creating log frames, and designing midterm reviews and final evaluations).
On an ongoing basis, when monitoring and reporting on DRR outcomes, it is important to note that many activities
and inputs, even if their results are not immediately apparent, eventually contribute to the achievement of changes.
For example, training events for children, teachers, and community members on DRR and hazard vulnerability capacity
assessments contribute to a capacity change for those participants, as well as indirect capacity changes for their
classrooms, households and communities at large. Seed grant projects carried out by children’s groups in their communities
contribute to citizenship changes for those children, as the seed grant process provides children with an opportunity to
participate in decision-making and lead community based interventions which benefit their communities’ resilience. Their
seed grants projects, when implemented, also serve as evidence to local governments and communities that children’s
participation can make their communities more resilient, resulting in increased spaces for children’s participation in disaster
management.
Guidelines for planning, monitoring, and evaluating with children

Many of the tools that will be presented in this section of the DRR toolkit involve participatory activities with children that
contribute to the planning, monitoring and evaluating of child-centred DRR programmes. These might include focus group
discussions with children, program planning sessions with children, and other participatory research methodologies that
help engage children, the most important stakeholders in a child-centred DRR program.
There are important considerations when conducting participatory monitoring and evaluation activities with children, and
they are very similar to the considerations that must be taken when conducting training with children.
C haracteristics of Child-Friendly Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation
When conducting M&E with children it is imperative to ensure:

Child protection: the meeting environment is safe; facilitators and/or consultants are trusted to work with children;
parental consent for participation is taken.
Child participation: the activities enable children’s views to be drawn out; children’s views are respected by the
facilitator and fellow participants; no child is excluded from participation in the group; children’s individual sharing of
opinions must also be kept confidential (see below, “Best Interests of the Child,” for more information).
Child engagement: the planning, monitoring and evaluation activities are fun, interactive, and age-appropriate.
Best interest of the Child

Plan International has seven value statements that guide its work and relationships. The first value is that we will always
act in the best interests of the child. Depending on the political context and even the project context, children may be at
risk when they criticize the way things might be working in a program. Their individual views may put them at risk if, in
discussions, they challenge power relations and address equity issues. They might even feel that any help or assistance
coming to them or their families might be in jeopardy if they are honest about their opinions. Acting in the best interests
of the child in these situations includes keeping in mind the community’s political contexts and the program’s contexts and
planning accordingly to avoid situations that might put children’s safety at risk or that make them feel like they will lose
potential program benefits. In addition to keeping individual children’s views confidential, this could include conducting
separate sessions for children in different groups where equity issues can come up and can create situations of risk.
Facilitators and/or consultants should work with colleagues and other stakeholders to assess these types of risks and plan
accordingly to minimize them.
When conducting participatory monitoring and evaluation activities with children, we recommend that groups are
separated by gender to allow for boys and girls to have equal opportunities to share their views and so that no one gender
dominates the discussion (and therefore, the evaluative results of the exercise. More discussion on the role of gender can be
found in the First Module of this toolkit.
Facilitator qualifications
Planning, monitoring and evaluation are often done by program staff, who can play the role of facilitators in participatory
M&E sessions that involve children. They may also involve external consultants. Regardless of who interacts with the
children, they should:
1. Have knowledge of child rights, of DRR concepts and tools, and of the planning, monitoring and evaluation
framework
2. Have ability and experience of conducting participatory sessions with children
3. Be prepared to learn from children
4. Abide by their organization’s child protection policy
Co-facilitation of sessions with children, particularly if external consultants are involved, helps to build trust in the room.
It can also help ensure child protection. Engaging other children in the leadership of participatory planning, monitoring
and evaluation sessions can also provide better outcomes. Plan’s experience conducting focus group discussions with
children for the “Views from the Frontline” survey found that children were especially keen on participating in focus group
discussions when the organizers or facilitators of the discussion were also children.
If a child or youth leader is chosen as a co-facilitator, preparation time should be spent with him or her to work on
participatory facilitation skills, review DRR concepts, and plan for the division of responsibilities. Keep in mind that the child
or youth co-facilitator’s time must also be respected. The child or youth should not be over-worked and should not be given
administrative responsibilities that are the adult facilitator’s job.
during the process to document all ideas and discussions. The note-taker should be prepared, together with the facilitators,
to foresee when important ideas and opinions are shared during the sessions.
Inclusion: All children in the session should be included in the process. Facilitators must be able to manage exclusion
of children, either the natural exclusion of more introverted children, the cultural expectations of different genders, the
discouraging behaviour of children towards each other (such as teasing), and making accommodations for children with
disabilities and other special needs (e.g.: most vulnerable/poorest).

See the Children’s Views from the Frontline report here: http://www.plan-uk.org/pdfs/Children_on_the_Frontline_GP_report.pdf
The Participants
Sometimes when conducting program monitoring and evaluation, it is not possible to engage every program participant
or stakeholder in the process. However, it is important to engage a sample of participants that is representative of all
program participants and stakeholders. Facilitators should be careful to include marginalized children, and make appropriate
accommodations for illiterate children, children with disabilities, etc. They should also consider holding separate M&E
feedback sessions with girls and boys.
Working with marginalized children also poses a challenge in that many of them have internalized their marginalization and
oppression, and may have difficulty feeling qualified to share their opinions, especially if mixed with other, more privileged
children. When faced with mixed groups, the facilitator must take great care to show respect to all children, and figure out
ways to draw in underprivileged children and affirm their thoughts and opinions. This can be achieved through other child
friendly/visual communications tools such as drawing, role play, and games.
Timing
In addition to the right to participate, children have a right to learn, and a right to play. All efforts should be made to
planning, monitoring and evaluation sessions with children during times when school is not in session. Facilitators should
also make an effort to keep the session times short and engaging, so that children are not bored or overburdened by the
session’s length.
Sharing the outcomes

Participatory planning, monitoring and evaluation should never be an extractive exercise. At the end of the process, the
outputs should be shared with all the children engaged in the feedback gathering exercises. Whenever possible, when
children suggest changes or improvements that are later implemented, the children should be given credit for their
suggestions and those changes realised should be shared with them. Child participants should always hear about the
outcomes that have resulted from their participation.
Compensation
Compensating children for their participation in a planning, monitoring and evaluation activity is a difficult issue. Most
adults engaged in program planning, monitoring and evaluation are paid staff or consultants, and so their research activities
are compensated. However, monetary compensation of children for their participation could be construed as child labour;
no compensation could be construed as exploitation. Thus, appropriate forms of compensating children for their time
in participation can include: providing a meal, paying for their transportation, and giving a small ‘thank you’ gift such as
school notebooks, pens, or other educational items.
Plan has several resources on training and consulting with children that can also be reviewed for further information:
- Grazyna Bonati, Plan Togo: 2006, “Monitoring and Evaluating with Children: A short guide.” http://plan-
international.org/files/Africa/WARO/publications/monitoring.pdf
- Grazyna Bonati. Plan Togo: 2006. “Consulting with Children: How to increase children’s participation in development
programs. A short guide.” http://plan-international.org/files/Africa/WARO/publications/consulting-with-children.pdf
- Daniel Walden and Kelly Hawrylyshyn, Plan UK: 2010, “Conducting Children’s Focus Group Discussions: Reflections
and Guidelines.” Evaluation Document. (It also contains additional useful references). This document can be found in
the annex of the Fourth Module – Advocacy with Children on Disaster Risk Reduction.
- Gary Antencio. Plan Cambodia: 2009. “Bamboo Shoots: A Training Manual on Child-Centred Community
Development for Children’s Groups.”
In addition, the following publication contains ethical guidelines for conducting research with children that are relevant:
Boyden J and Ennew J (Eds.), 1997, Children in Focus; A Manual for Participatory Research With Children, Rädda Barnen:
Stockholm.
http://repository.forcedmigration.org/pdf/?pid=fmo:3837 Tools for Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating Child-Centred
DRR programs
There are a number of ways the Child Centred M&E framework can be used to plan for child-centred DRR programs, and
even for mainstreaming DRR in wider scale development work.
(a) Conducting a DRR situation analysis with children and adults

In this section we present two tools for conducting a DRR situation analysis. For organizations who are considering the
integration of DRR into all of their programming, these tools are helpful for providing a DRR lens.
The first tool is a series of survey questions and focus group discussion questions assessing progress in the implementation
of the Hyogo Framework for Action. Plan together with Worldvision conducted the survey through focus group discussions
with over 1,000 participants from 17 countries, 854 of whom were children and young people, in 2009. Findings from
the DRR survey with children were published in the report “Children on the Frontline: A child-centred complement to
the report of the Global Network of NGOs, Views from the Frontline.”10 What follows is a modification of the focus group
questions that were conducted with children. The original questions, which requested ranked responses from 1-5, can be
found on page 36 of the actual report.
When using these questions in focus group discussions with children, it will be important to note that the terminology
may need explanation by the facilitator. Thus, facilitators must have a good grasp of DRR concepts to be able to explain
terms that the children in the group might not understand. Due to the number of questions, it may be more beneficial to
divide the questions up into two shorter focus group sessions, or to select questions that are of greatest importance to your
overall situation analysis.
DRR Situational Analysis: Child focus group discussion questions

Section 1: Governance
A1: Does your community have well organised groups or committees ready to decide what to do in case of disasters?
Describe them.
A2: Do these groups or committees include children and young people’s participation? How are children and young
people included?
A3: Do girls and boys participate equally in groups or committees deciding what to do in case of disasters? If not, why not?
A4: Do children and young people in your community know their rights with regard to protection from disaster risks?
Can you describe some of these rights?
A5: Do children and young people in your community know the government’s responsibility to provide protection from
disaster risks? Can you describe what that is?
A6: Do children in your community receive training, both on how to reduce risks from disasters and on how to respond
in case of disaster? What are some examples?
A7: Does your school conduct drills to prepare and respond to disasters? If so, how often? If not, why not?
A8: Do children and young people’s groups in your community address disaster risk reduction issues through discussions
and actions? What are some examples?
A9: Do you feel that children and young people’s voices are heard in your community in decisions about what to do to
reduce the risks of disasters? How?
A10: Do you feel that the voices of girls and boys are heard equally in your community in decisions about what to do to
reduce the risks of disasters? If so, how? If not, why not?
10
The full report “Children on the Frontline” report can be found at: http://www.plan-uk.org/pdfs/childernonthefrontline.pdf
Section 2: Risk Assessment, Monitoring and Warning

B1: Are children and young people invited to community meetings held to assess disaster risks? How often? How do
those meetings go?
B2: Do children and young people conduct or participate in community disaster risk assessments? How?
B3: Do children and young people conduct or participate in school disaster risk assessments? How?
B4: Do girls and boys participate equally in community and school disaster risk assessments (such as vulnerability
capacity assessments, risk mapping, planning for mitigation activities)? If not, why not?
B5: Does your community have early warning systems in place to raise awareness of potential risks? Can you give examples?
B6: Do children help establish the early warning systems in your community? How do they do that?
Section 3: Knowledge and Education
C1: Do children and young people learn about ways of preventing and dealing with disasters in local schools or colleges?
How?
C2: Does your community know enough about the potential risks of hazards to be able to respond in case of danger?
What are some examples?
C3: Are there public awareness campaigns that teach people about how they can take practical measures to protect
themselves from the impact of hazards? Can you describe them?
C4: Does the community know how safe their school buildings are, and the practical steps to take to ensure that all new
and existing schools are strengthened to provide protection from the impact of hazards?
C5: Do children and young people participate in the communication of disaster risks within your community (formally
and informally, such as awareness raising campaigns, theatre, media)? How?
Section 4: Underlying Risk Factors
D1: Are children and young people engaged in environmental protection/resource management (e.g.: reforestation,
mangrove protection, cleaning campaigns, recycling)? Can you describe an example?
D2: Are children and young people in your community trying to adapt to future changes in climate and weather? (for
example, through alternative livelihoods, family support with
income generation, microfinance)? How?
D3: If yes, do you think climate change adaptation is a priority issue for your community?
D4: Does your community have access to enough reserve food supplies for use in times of emergency?
D5: Do vulnerable children and young people (such as girls, the poor, and disabled people) have access to basic social
services during and after disasters (such as health, education, and food services)?
D6: Are vulnerable children being addressed in your community’s activities tackling poverty? How?
Section 5: Preparedness and Response
E1: Does your community have a clear emergency response plan in case of disasters that address the needs of children?
Can you describe it?
E2: Are children trained in first aid, search and rescue, swimming & water rescue, wireless and radio communications,
fire suppression, water purification, and similar skills?
E3: Does your community have clearly marked, child friendly, and accessible evacuation routes and safe havens? Are
there plans for evacuating people with limited mobility? Can you describe them?
E4: Does your school have clearly marked, child friendly and accessible evacuation routes and safe havens? (Are child
friendly spaces identified? Are temporary school arrangements/boats & transportation identified for reaching school
during floods, etc.?) Can you describe them?
E5: Are your community’s emergency response plans tested regularly with rehearsal exercises? How often?
E6: Have children and young people participated in the development of the emergency response plan? How?
E7: Do children and young people feel they have the skills they need to keep themselves safe in disasters? Can you
describe some examples?
DRR Situational Analysis: Questions for Adults

The following questions11 could be conducted via interviews or FGDs with community leaders, local authorities and CSOs
in the target areas of intervention and covers the five priority areas of the Hyogo Framework for Action. We recommend
FGDs should be with a maximum of 10 participants, and groups should be divided by gender to generate the best
feedback.
Section 1: Governance
Local government
AC1: Are there opportunities for children and young people to express their views on disaster risk reduction and for
their representation to be formally recognised on local disaster risk reduction institutional structures?
Civil Society Organisation
AC1: Have national and local Civil Society Organisations in your country supported the participation of children and
young people in disaster risk reduction?
AC2: Does your organisation support the participation of children and young people in disaster risk reduction?
Community Representative
AC1: Does your community have children’s and young people’s groups and organisations that actively address disaster
risk reduction issues?
AC2: In your community are the voices of children and young people heard in discussions and decision-making
processes on what to do to reduce the risks of disasters?
Section 2: Risk Assessment, Monitoring and Warning
Local government (senior and education officials only)
BC1: Do children and young people participate in local the hazard / risk assessments?
BC2: Are children and young people informed about updates on key risks and do they participate in sharing them within
their schools and communities?
BC1: Does your organisation have adequate skills to facilitate the participation of children and young people in
participatory risk assessments on potential hazards and vulnerabilities within disaster-prone communities?
BC1: Do children and young people conduct or participate in school and community disaster risk assessments?
BC2: Do children and young people participate in the establishment of early warning systems?
Section 3: Knowledge and Education
Local Government (education officials only)
CC1: Are there opportunities for children and young people to participate in the dissemination of information on disaster
risks and how to reduce them within their schools and communities?
11
These questions were added to the survey questions developed by the Global Network for Disaster Risk Reduction for the main “Views from the Frontline” report. The
report is available in English, French and Spanish – at http://www.globalnetwork-dr.org/images/reports/vflfullreport0609.pdf. The original surveys can be found starting
on page 55 of the “Views from the Frontline” report. These surveys were conducted by mail, by phone, or in face-to-face, one-on-one interviews with individuals from
each category, using a 1-5 scale.

CC1: Is the facilitation of children’s and young people’s participation in disaster risk reduction included in staff training?
CC2: Do community training initiatives on disaster risk reduction knowledge and practice focus on children?
CC1: Do children and young people participate in the communication of disaster risks within your community?
Section 4: Underlying Risk Factors
Local Government
DC1: Do children and young people participate in the reduction of the risks that they perceive within their schools and
communities?
DC2 (senior and planning officials only): Are the protection of children’s rights before, during and after disasters
integrated into local development and disaster risk reduction policies and plans?
DC1: Does your organisation support the children and young people to understand and cope with climate change and
adapt to future conditions?
Section 5: Preparedness and Response
Local Government (planning and education officials only)
EC1: Do children and young people participate in training drills and evacuation rehearsals done with at-risk schools and
communities?
EC1: Do the disaster management plans of local communities, civil society organisations and local and national
government incorporate the protection of children’s and young people’s rights and their participation before, during
and after disasters?
EC1: Have children and young people participated in the development of the emergency response plan?
EC2: Do children and young people have the range of response skills that they need to keep themselves safe in
disasters?
Section 6: Cross-cutting issues
Local Government
FC1: Are children and young people participating in the decision-making and implementation of disaster risk reduction
activities?
FC1: Has local government incorporated the protection of children’s and young people’s rights and their participation
before, during and after disasters?
(b) Integrating Child Centred DRR into Country Strategy Plans – A CSP Assessment Tool
The second tool provided in this section is an assessment tool that Programme Countries can use when developing Country
Strategy Plans (CSPs) or Programme Strategies (e.g.: health, education). The tool helps managers assess whether their
strategies are effectively integrating DRR and climate change adaptation within their situational analysis, programme and
advocacy and communications work, Human Resources, and operational procedures.
Disaster Risk Reduction Country Strategy Assessment Tool:

Disaster Risk Element Indicator Source Findings Assessment
Organization’s Understanding
Sound understanding of All existing or potential disaster risks Situation Analysis Knowledge
existing or potential future in the country are identified (floods, (e.g.. Power analysis)
disasters risks at the country/ typhoon, landslides, drought, sea-level Country Strategic
region/local level rises, conflict, food security, epidemics, Plan
pest-infestations-e.g.: locust)
Main disaster management networks/
clusters, actors & national disaster
management policies are identified
Causes/drivers of disaster risks are
identified, including environmental
management & climate change
Government’s capacity in disaster risk
management is assessed, including
capacity to protect child rights in
disaster settings
Sound understanding of Child rights violations or gaps identified Knowledge

the impact of existing or in disaster settings including pre & post
future disaster risks on the disasters e.g.
realisation of the rights of o Protection gaps/violations
children in the country/
o Limitations on, or denial of, access
region/local level
to services
o Participation in decision making
Organization’s Response
Organization activities/ Programme and advocacy/ Country Strategic Application
interventions (including communications planning documents Plan
advocacy) demonstrate a explicitly articulate strategies to address Local office/Program
practical strategic response the disaster risks identified (activities: Unit long term plans
(to the disaster risk context/ infrastructure, training, institutional
Annual reviews
setting) building, advocacy & awareness/child
media ) Evaluation reports
Potential negative impacts Strategies to build community resilience Country Strategic Application
of organization activities/ to disasters are outlined – e.g.: disaster Plan
interventions on the increase proofing & innovative renewable energy/ Local office/Program
in disaster risks context/ rain water harvesting Unit long term plans
setting have been considered Activities to minimise disaster risks Annual reviews
and minimised are included in education, health, child
Evaluation reports
protection, livelihoods, WATSAN
Potential positive impacts Activities to maximise disaster Country Strategic Application

of organization activities/ preparedness and mitigation are Plan
interventions on reducing outlined Local office/Program
disaster risks have been Strategies for contingency planning, Unit long term plans
considered and maximised partnerships for response work Evaluation reports
(psychosocial support, EIE) are outlined
Assessment Description
Knowledge 1 There is a good understanding of the element

2 There is some understanding of the element
3 There is limited understanding of the element
Application 1 There is evidence that element is fully operational and integrated into all programmatic work
2 There is some evidence that the element is operational and integrated into all programmatic work
3 There is little or no evidence that the element is operational and integrated into all programmatic work
A case study example of a Country Strategy Programme (CSP) that has conducted a strong situational analysis and
effectively integrated DRR and CCA into its strategies for programme interventions can be found in the Second Module -
Annex 4 (Plan Bolivia’s country strategy paper). The CSP lists the strategies and their objectives for managing risk reduction
and adaptability to climate change for the most vulnerable populations. It also lists the results indicators for each strategy,
providing a good example of how to integrate child-centred DRR outcomes within a specific country context.
(c) Conducting a baseline study for DRR program work

While the above tools focused on integrating or mainstreaming DRR into an organization’s or country office’s overall
program strategy, this section provides a tool for conducting a DRR baseline study for “stand-alone” DRR programs. A
baseline study is important for planning a child-centred DRR program, so that the most appropriate activities can be
planned, and changes can be seen more clearly during and after program implementation.
The following baseline study tool draws from the child-centred DRR outcomes, and was created and implemented by Plan
Bangladesh. It uses focus group discussions with children (section 1) and lists the outcomes that can be determined using
other participatory rapid appraisal tools (section 2). As can be seen from the tool below, the data gathered from conducting
an HVCA with children can serve as a source for a DRR baseline study.
Section 1: Focus Group Discussion Questions:

Thematic Area 3: Knowledge and Education
Questions
1. What experiences do you have of a disaster?
2. How did you feel during the disaster?
3. Who should be involved in preparing for a disaster? How could you participate?
• Indicator (Institutional Change): Shared vision of a prepared and resilient community
4. Who is most vulnerable during a disaster? (I.E, men, women, children (boys or girls) disabled etc). Why are they more
vulnerable and in what way?
5. What do you know about climate change?
• Indicator (Capacity Change): Community knowledge of hazards, vulnerability, risks and risk reduction actions
sufficient to effective action by community.
6. What do you learn in your schools about disasters? What measures have been put in place in your schools/homes to
prepare for disasters? Has this information made you more prepared to face disasters (or not)?
• Indicator (Institutional Change, Policy Change): local schools provide education in DRR.
7. What effects have disasters had on your school/schooling?
8. How (and where) else can we learn about risks and share this information with others (i.e.: schools, media, family
members, other)?
9. Do you think that if people where more aware of their risks, they would change their ways/habits?
10. Do you think people are interested/open to learn about risks? How to address those who are not interested in this?
Thematic Area 2: Risk assessment
11. When is flooding [fires, earthquakes, etc.] a disaster?
12. Who in the community should understand the risks they face and why?
Thematic Area 1: Governance

Questions
13. Has anyone explained to you the government’s standing order on disaster management? Would you be interested in
hearing about it?
• Indicator (Capacity Change): Community understands relevant legislation, regulations and procedures and their
importance & Community are aware of its rights and legal obligations of government and other stakeholders to
provide protection.
14. What activities are you involved in to make your home/school/community safe from a disaster?
Boys Girls Both

Home
School
Community
• Indicator (Citizenship Change, Institutional Change): Community and other local-level actors in sustainable
development and DRR engaged in joint planning with community and local-level teams and structures;
households and families develop their own continuity and recovery plans.
• Indicator (Policy Change): a community DP/DRR or contingency plan exists.
15. Are there any activities mostly for boys or girls?
16. In what ways is local government or other stakeholders helping you in these activities?
Thematic Area 4: Risk Management & Vulnerability Reduction
17. How can we make sure our environment is preserved? Who is responsible for this (i.e.: community, govt, private
sector?)
18. What are the challenges a community has in protecting its environment?
19. What must people do to ensure they are healthy? And for their community to be healthy?
Thematic Area 5: Disaster Preparedness and Response
20. Who in your community is responsible for preparing/responding to disasters? Are children/women involved?
• Indicator (Policy change, Institutional change): Local organizational structure for DP/emergency response.
21. How can communities organise themselves to prepare for a disaster? (i.e.: training, plans, etc)
22. How do we make sure all people in a community are prepared?
23. How do we make sure that we are always prepared? Tomorrow and in 5 years time?
24. With whom is it important to coordinate with in times of an emergency?
25. Where would you go to during a disaster for safety?
• Indicator (Access to services change): emergency shelters/facilities
26. How do you know a disaster is about to occur? For flooding? Earthquake? Drought?
• Indicator (Access to services change): community based and people centred early warning system at local level
27. Who can inform you? How? Who would you inform? How can we let everyone know?
28. In what ways do community members help each other during a disaster?
• Indicator (Capacity change): community capacity
29. Does everyone receive help or just those most affected?

• Indicator (well-being change): response and recovery actions
• Indicator (capacity change): community knowledge of how to obtain aid and other support for relief.
30. If there was a space/area you could use during a disaster, what would it look like? (Inside and outside)
31. What scares/worries you about sharing open spaces?
32. What would be needed to make you feel safe/protected and happy in this space?
33. Where would be a good place to have a child space in your community?
Section 2: Indicators shown through participatory rapid appraisal tools and reports
Thematic Area 1: Governance
1. What is your vision of a “safe community”?
• Indicator (Institutional change): Shared vision of a prepared and resilient community
This can be seen from the drawings of children’s “visions of their safe community” which can be drawn during a DRR
planning workshop. Girls and boys can draw separate pictures and these will be merged at the end.
2. Why are some people more vulnerable to a disaster than others?
• Indicator (Capacity change): Vision and DRR plans informed by understanding of underlying causes of
vulnerability and other factors outside the community’s control.
This can be asked after children have identified vulnerable people on the hazard and resource map after the hazard
mapping activity during the DRR training with HCVA.
3. Consensus views of risks & RR actions
• Indicator (capacity change; institutional change): Consensus view of risks faced, risk management approach
and specific actions to be taken and targets to be met
This can be seen when plans that children develop after DRR training with HVCA are implemented.
4. Indicator (Institutional change; Policy change): Community DRR seen by all local stakeholders as integral part of
plans and actions to achieve wider community goals with recognition of children/women and men’s rights.
If changes have been made to local government disaster management plans as a result of child and community DRR
plans, this will indicate local stakeholders see these plans as important.
• Source of verification; Old and new plans highlighting changes made as a result of DRR plans.
5. Indicator (Institutional change): Responsibilities, resources, etc defined in community disaster plans.
• Source of verification; Hazard and resource maps & DRR plans showing human and financial resource allocation.
6. Indicator (Institutional change): Access to information on local government plans, structures (by both women and
men as well as children)
• Source of verification: local organizations have copies of the local government plans
7. Indicator (Institutional change): Participatory monitoring and evaluation systems (accessible by men and women
as well as children) to assess resilience and progress in DRR.
• Source of verification; participatory monitoring and evaluation plans.
8. Indicator (Institutional change): Inclusion/representation of vulnerable groups in community decision making and
management.
• Source of verification: Planning session attendance sheets and reports
Thematic Area 2: Risk assessment

Hazards/risk data and assessment
9. Indicator (citizenship change): Community hazard/risk assessments carried out which provide comprehensive
picture of all major hazards risks facing community
• Source of verification: Hazard and resource maps which have been drawn by children and verified by adults
(men and women)
10. How do we know we are including all the risks? Do we need support from others outside the community for this?
11. Indicator (Institutional change): Assessment finding shared and made available to all interested parties and feed
into their disaster plans
• Source of verification: community based organizations have copies of the community & local government plans
12. Indicator (capacity change): Skills and capacity to carry out community hazard and risk assessments maintained
through support and training
• Source of verification: Reports of community risk assessment and DRR planning and trainings on risk assessment
Vulnerability and impact data assessment
13. Indicator (capacity change): Community vulnerability and capacity assessments (CVAs) carried out with (with
meaningful participation of men and women) provide comprehensive picture of vulnerabilities
• Source of verification: community risk assessment identifies all vulnerable sectors & community elements
14. Indicator (Institutional change): participatory process with meaningful participation of men and women
• Source of verification; community risk assessment report showing data collected by children through
participatory rapid appraisal was verified by community members.
Scientific and technical capacities and innovation
15. Indicator (Capacity change): community members (both men and women) and organizations trained in hazard,
risk and VCA techniques and supported carry out assessments;
• Source of verification; Training and community risk assessment reports.
(d) Child-centred DRR log frame

The logical framework approach (LFA) is a commonly used planning, monitoring and evaluation approach used within
results-based management, especially with government donors. The central tool of the LFA is the “log frame” itself, which
is a snapshot of a project’s objectives, indicators, sources of verification, activities and resources. There are several different
log frame formats available. The example below, which is a “stepping stone” rather than an actual example that could be
implemented, uses one of the more commonly used log frame formats12. Second Module - Annex 5 contains an example
log frame used by Plan UK to submit to DFID, using DFID’s log frame format.
12
For several resources on LFA, including different examples and templates, see: http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/worksheets/LogframeExample.pdf (one of the
most commonly used log frame examples, used above); Innovation Network (www.innonet.org; use their “PointK” network for an online logic model builder and a slightly
different log frame example); UK Department for International Development guidelines for the new DFID log frame format of 2009 (http://mande.co.uk/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2009/06/logical-framework.pdf).
Means of Important Risks

Project Summary Indicators of Achievement
Verification and Assumptions
Goal
XXX number of communities become more resilient to disasters through the participation of children in disaster
management governance.
Purpose (should include at least one development outcome and one democratic outcome; both should be
linked)
Development outcome:
-To build the capacities of children and their communities to identify risks and reduce them through mitigation and
preparation
Democratic outcome:
-To create spaces for children’s voices to be heard in community disaster management plans
Outputs (these can be drawn from child- -attendance records -local governments
centred DRR outputs and indicators) of children in HVCA are open to
-To engage 100 children in XXX
engaging children
communities in an HVCA and -100 children participate in a DRR -resources from
implement a plan for reducing risks HVCA in each community local disaster -children are
management ready and able to
-To involve the local disaster -local disaster management
administrations participate in an
management administrations in the administrations supports children’s
devoted to HVCA
plan the children have implemented plans for reducing risks
implementation of
-political context is
plan
safe for children’s
Activities -DRR training with HVCA conducted -attendance records participation
with each children’s group recruited of children in HVCA
-recruit children’s groups to
adding up to 100
participate in DRR program -planning session conducted with
children or more;
each children’s group
-conduct child-centred DRR training documentation of
with HVCA -meeting scheduled with local HVCA outputs and
disaster management administration risk reduction plans
-plan for risk reduction activities
requesting forum with children
with children -local disaster
-plan fora with children management
-adults meet with local disaster administrations
management administrations -fora with children scheduled and meet with children,
conducted listens to their
-set up fora for children to
share ideas with local disaster -children’s plans implemented and ideas, and agrees
management administration evaluated to support their
plans with human,
-implement risk reduction activities financial or other
with children and support of resources.
local disaster management
administrations -children’s plan is
implemented with
-evaluate activities with children local government
-document outcomes and good support
practices -children evaluate
-share outcomes to influence other their own plan
stakeholders -children’s plan
reduces risks in
their communities
(e) Child-centred DRR outcome map

An alternative or possibly overlapping approach to the LFA is Outcome Mapping. Outcome Mapping involves creating
a shared vision and mission for program, describing an “outcome challenge” for the program, identifying “boundary
partners” that the program implementer hopes to influence through the program, identifying “progress markers” for each
boundary partner, and then describing a strategy map for achieving those progress markers.13
In our example below, we focus on children’s groups as a boundary partner. Any child-centred DRR program that uses our
framework will have several boundary partners, in addition to children’s groups. Other “boundary partners” can include
local disaster management government entities, other community-based organizations, schools, parents, etc.
Outcome Mapping:
• Defines the program's outcomes as changes in the behaviour of direct partners
• Focuses on how programs facilitate change rather than how they control or cause change
• Recognizes the complexity of development processes together with the contexts in which they occur
• Looks at the logical links between interventions and outcomes, rather than trying to attribute results to any
particular intervention
• Locates a program's goals within the context of larger development challenges beyond the reach of the program to
encourage and guide the innovation and risk-taking necessary
• Requires the involvement of program staff and partners throughout the planning, monitoring, and evaluation stages
Terminology:
Outcomes: Changes in relationships, activities, actions, or behaviours of boundary partners that can be logically linked to
a program’s activities although they are not necessarily directly caused by it. These changes are aimed at contributing to
specific aspects of human and ecological well-being by providing the boundary partners with new tools, techniques, and
resources to contribute to the development process.
Boundary Partners: Those individuals, groups, and organizations with whom the program interacts directly to effect
change and with whom the program can anticipate some opportunities for influence.
WHY Vision Statement
HOW Mission, Strategy Maps, Organizational Practices
WHO Boundary Partners
WHAT Outcome Challenges & Progress Markers
13
More information about Outcome Mapping as an approach, including in-depth explanations and definitions of the terms “outcome challenge,” “boundary partner,”
“progress marker,” and “strategy map,” see http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-26586-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html for the downloadable handbook and links to the Outcome Mapping
online community.
Plan International’s DRR Program Outcome Map
V ision
Vision is a statement of what we want to achieve for our boundary partner. A description of the large-scale
development changes (economic, political, social, or environmental) to which the program hopes to contribute.
• Children are living in safe communities, attending safe schools, and living in safe homes
• Their education is not interrupted by disasters, and their families are not severely affected when disasters strikes
• Children know what to do to be safe and contribute to the safety of their homes and community.
• They enjoy living in a healthy environment, where all are contributing to protect their natural resources and reduce
pollution.
• Children are aware of their rights to survival, development, protection and participation (as per the UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child), and all of society contribute to the protection and fulfilment of these rights.
• Children are engaging as active citizens in wider community development
• adults in their communities listen to children and value their views concerning DRR and community safety
M ission
Mission is a statement of how we want to achieve our vision. An ideal description of how the program intends to
support the achievement of the vision. It states with whom the program will work and the areas in which it will work,
but does not list all the activities in which the program will engage.
• build children’s DRR knowledge, skills and abilities – through training; curricula development; support in developing
risk maps and DRR action plans, and in the implementation of DRR interventions; and awareness raising and
advocacy activities
• influence duty bearers to engage children in DRR – through developing tools on child centred DRR (e.g.: child-
centred DRR training curricula, school curricula, training and awareness raising videos), providing opportunities for
capacity building/institutional development (training on DRR and child participation)
• build an evidence base on value of children’s participation through research, media coverage and documentation and
advocacy work to influence policy and behaviour change in support of children’s participation in DRR
O utcome Challenge
Outcome Challenge is a statement of what activities will demonstrate your vision is being achieved. It is a description
of the ideal changes in the behaviour, relationships, activities, and/or actions of a boundary partner. It is the
program’s challenge to help bring about the changes.
Boundary Partner = Children’s groups

Children’s groups are taking action to make their communities more resilient to disasters. They are influencing their parents,
community members, community leaders and schools to take action on DRR. They are contributing to DRR awareness
raising through innovative and creative campaigns and are promoting behavioural change towards better environmental
management practices and risk reduction/safety to protect their lives, livelihoods, homes, community infrastructure (health
centres, bridges, roads etc).They are formally recognised in Disaster Management committees (at community and school
level) focusing on DM and influence annual DM plans, budgets, & M&E mechanisms. They have recognised roles in disaster
prevention, preparedness & response.
Progress Markers for Boundary Partner: Children’s groups

Progress Markers are a set of graduated indicators of changed behaviours for a boundary partner that focus on depth or
quality of change.
First Level of Change: What we expect to see
• developing their own risk maps
• designing their own DRR action plans
• implementing DRR interventions (e.g.: retention walls in school, tree planting)
• implementing awareness raising campaigns
Second Level of Change: What we would like to see
• seeking to learn more about how to prevent, prepare for and respond to disasters
• sharing their DRR knowledge & experience at home & in their communities
• lobbying local authorities & community leaders to listen to their ideas & their calls for action to make their
communities safer
• sharing information with children in other communities about DRR
Third Level of Change: What we would love to see
• expressing what they need/want to do to feel safer/reduce risks: feel empowered to address risks in their lives
• actively participating in disaster management committees, contributing to planning, implementation, M&E
• taking up roles in prevention, preparedness & response (e.g.: evacuation of community members, EWS monitoring,
supporting in shelters)
• lobbying local authorities to finance environmental management activities (e.g.: reforestation, mangrove protection,
recycling, waste management, other)
• collaborating with children elsewhere to influence national/international awareness and action on DRR
• going on to become active in community development (as adults engaged in community committees)
Strategy Map
A strategy map is a matrix that categorizes six strategy types (causal, persuasive, and supportive), which a program employs
to influence its boundary partner. Strategies are aimed at either the boundary partner or the environment in which the
boundary partner operates.
Individual Boundary partner: Children’s groups

• Causal - $500 seed grants, child centred Tools
• Persuasive – training to children (on VCA, DRR action planning, how to develop awareness raising campaign)
• Supportive – Disaster Management children’s groups established at community and school level link to community
groups, exchanges and networks between different children’s groups from different communities.
Boundary partners’ environment

• Causal – influencing Disaster Management policy of Civil Defence to support children’s role in Disaster Management
(researchers to generate evidence that influences DM policy) & influencing policy of MOE on DRR curricula
(development of tools for MOE & curricula); advocacy work through lobbying for increase in DRR budget
allocation and mainstreaming of DRR in poverty reduction plans/programmes (DRR national coalition work for the
implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action on DRR, sharing best practice from other countries)
• Persuasive – engaging media to increase coverage on value of DRR and child centred DRR (children will benefit
from greater public awareness and support for children’s role) through media fellowships to project areas, media
training on child centred DRR, commissioning DRR documentaries and featuring these in national television, working
with TV programmes for children (puppet show) and children’s authors and other children’s publications
• Supportive – set-up/strengthening adults DM committees, engaging at national level networks on DM and Child Rights
(f) Using the Child-centred HVCA for evaluation

Although it is not recommended that the HVCA be used as a national-level evaluation tool, the HVCA can serve as an
evaluation tool at the local and community level. The first HVCA that children conduct in a community, when results are
carefully documented, can serve as a baseline study, or inform a broader one as described above. After two years, for
example, the HVCA process can be repeated in full, with the same original participants, as well as new participants. The
outputs of this second HVCA could then be compared to the first. We strongly recommend that project managers take
photos of all HVCAs produced and document this well in order to come back to it upon project completion. Children can
visually compare them by looking at maps created as part of their initial HVCA phase and comparing it to maps created in
the evaluation phase. Facilitators should then us probing questions with children, in small focus group discussions or using
other participatory activities, with the following evaluation questions:
1. Are the vulnerabilities identified in the first HVCA still present in their communities after two years?
2. Have the vulnerabilities been reduced, increased or have new ones emerged? What factors have contributed to
this? (These factors may not necessarily be factors within the control of the program, or even the local and national
governments, but may be attributed to climate change, to international decisions and actors, to the effects of
multinational corporations, etc.)
The same questions can be asked about capacities:
1. Do the capacities identified in the first HVCA still exist? Have they been strengthened or have they been weakened?
What factors have contributed to this?
2. Have new capacities been built since the first HVCA? What are they? What factors have contributed to this?
Children can then also evaluate the actions carried out that they had identified at the end of the first HVCA.
1. What actions have been implemented by the children? By the adults? By local governments? By national
governments? By other important actors and duty bearers?
2. From the perspective of the children, how successful were the actions taken? What is still left to be implemented?
What barriers have they faced in their attempts to take action?
To further empower the children who have participated in your project, the findings of their evaluations can then be
compiled from the several communities and shared with the participating children to show the combined impact of all of
their efforts over the previous years. The compilation can also indicate some of the common challenges that children are
facing, helping them to see they are not alone in dealing with those problems. This compilation can turn into priorities
for advocacy work at a national and even global level. It can also serve as planning for continued DRR work with children,
beginning again the participatory program cycle.
(g) Final evaluation: checklist for country offices

In planning the final evaluation for your child centred DRR project, and designing the terms of reference (TOR) to be
put out for tender, the following questions provide a good example of questions to be used to assess the changes and
the impact of a project’s interventions.14 We also recommend that the OECD DAC criteria are included to measure:
Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact and Sustainability.15
Questions for a final evaluation of a Child Centred DRR project:

Project’s Strategy/Approach
How did you manage the broad definition of “risks” in the implementation of the project?
What have been the key partnerships developed at community, local and national levels during project implementation?
How effective were child centred DRR implementation activities to achieve programme expected outcomes? Including, for
example:
• Seed grants
• Participatory video
• Community media
• Child-led VCA – participatory VCA
• Awareness-raising and community sensitisation
• Participation in COP/GPs
• Advocacy
How did you ensure each intervention was relevant to local context? Were any interventions considered less relevant or not
at all relevant by communities and/or after implementation?
How did you assess time available to children to participate in DRR activities? How did you manage the burden on
children’s time? How did you ensure child centred DRR activities did not compete with other Plan activities (e.g. Health
clubs, HR clubs etc)?
Enabling Environment
How were child centred DRR implementation activities hindered or fostered by:
• National and local contexts: socio-economic, political, legal, rights, environment and DRR agendas
• Community characteristics (inc. parental understanding and support)
• School characteristics
• Level and type of interventions
• Target groups (children, young people, vulnerable children, girls etc)
• Plan context
• Type of disaster risks
14
From September to December 2010, Education for Change conducted the final evaluation of Plan International’s DFID funded Child Centred DRR project. These
questions are adopted from the evaluation framework developed by Education for Change.
15
See: http://www.oecd.org/document/22/0,2340,en_2649_34435_2086550_1_1_1_1,00.html
Impact
What proportion of child centred DRR activities at local level would you say were transformative rather than about
expression of children’s voice, knowledge and preparedness of children on DRR issues? What evidence do you have for this?
What have been the child centred DRR successes and challenges in terms of:
• Non-discrimination and inclusion
• Reaching the most vulnerable
• Best interest of the child
• Children’s participation: issues, backlash...
• Working with multi-level stakeholders
• Other successes or challenges?
How effectively have local child centred DRR experiences supported advocacy at national level for child centred DRR?
Has the programme contributed to stronger resilience of children to disaster?
• Evidence that the programme contributed to improved knowledge and awareness of CYP on DRR:
• Type of risks
• EWS
• Legislation
• Rights to protection
• Mechanisms for DRM
• Stakeholders and duty bearers
• The programme contributed to children’s empowerment and leadership on DRR:
• Participation in VCA and contingency planning
• Participation in preparedness and disaster response activities
• Relational connectivity vis-a-vis stakeholders with decision-making power
• Safe behaviour and coping capacities (DRR life skills)
• Agency for self-initiated interventions
Has the programme contributed to stronger resilience of communities to disaster?
• Evidence that the programme has contributed to tangible DRR changes in participating communities (including in
schools) in terms of:
• Governance
• Knowledge and education
• Risk assessment and planning
• Risk management and vulnerability reduction
• Disaster preparedness, response and recovery
• Evidence that the programme promoted intergenerational dialogue and learning on DRR issues
Has the programme influenced communities in any other way?

Have child centred DRR activities helped increase adults taking responsibilities for DRM? How?
Has child centred DRR made duty bearers more accountable to children? How?
Has the programme contributed to the promotion and the realisation of CYP’s rights in general? What have been the
different types of contributions at different levels (school, community and national level)?
• Evidence that the programme has:
• Increased CYP’s awareness of their rights
• Increased CYP’s opportunity and capacity to exercise their rights
• Increased the realisation of CYP’s rights (survival, protection, education, participation)
• Made changes to the awareness, capacity and responsibility exercised by adults, local and national duty-bearers
vis-a-vis children’s rights in general
What do you think is the value-added of DRR as a space for child rights promotion?
Has the programme led to policy and institutional change in schools, communities, or at national level?
Have Plan’s national level partners demonstrated increased attention to DRR and child centred DRR as a result of Plan’s
programme? In what ways?
• Evidence of increased visibility of child centred DRR on the DRR, the education and the emergencies agendas locally
and nationally by a range of actors including:
• Government and institutional actors
• Schools
• CSOs / Youth groups
• Humanitarian, DRR, education, children’s rights and other NGOs, UN agencies and networks
• Academia
• The media
• Evidence of positive changes in support for/ appreciation/ take up of child centred DRR?
• Gaps or barriers that impeded partners knowledge and/or take up child centred DRR?
(h) How to write a case study

A case study is an extremely useful tool for programme evaluation, documentation, learning, sharing and communication.
It is a particularly powerful evaluation and learning tool for DRR work because, unlike other, more quantitative ways of
evaluating programmes, it allows for explorations of context and complexity. A good case study is not necessarily a “success
story” – although case studies can be used to document success stories. Rather, it should clearly describe challenges and
lessons learned along the way of achieving your program or project outcomes.
Questions to consider before starting to write your case study:

1 What is my topic? A useful case study will cover any of the themes and concerns that are common to others doing
similar work. For example, your case study could centre around one of the expected outcomes of a programme
implemented in several countries. It could also discuss a common challenge that you have had experience with.
2 What do I want to learn as a result of this case study? Perhaps you have implemented an innovative approach
and would like to determine if the approach helped you achieve your desire outcomes. Perhaps you have achieved
a success, but confronted challenges along the way that you might be able to avoid the next time if you learned
from them. Perhaps you have not achieved what you hoped to achieve in the programme, and want to identify the
barriers or obstacles to the success you were looking for. Perhaps you had some ‘surprise’ outcomes to your work
and would like to explore how those outcomes came about.
3 Who is my audience? Is it an internal organizational audience? Could your case study be beneficial to organizations
or practitioners outside of your organization? Will it be published externally? Will I use it as a basis for a training/
learning event? Will I use it to inform future programme planning?
4 How will I gather information? While writing a case study seems like telling a story, it does entail a research
process. Some areas to pursue for gathering information include: interviews or focus groups with programme
participants, programme stakeholders, and programme staff; internal monitoring reports on your programme; a
review of media coverage of your work, historical references about the community you are writing about, etc. Having
diverse sources is important for being able to use you case study as an evaluation tool.
5 Who will work with me? You might consider engaging some colleagues or programme partners in the research
effort for this case study, and divide up roles and responsibilities. Engaging a team for the effort is useful for
analysis, as you can discuss ideas and reach important conclusions that you might not have considered on your own.
Depending on your audience and the purpose for writing the case study, you may consider involving an external
consultant. An external consultant may be useful if the case study will be published externally, or used as part of an
evaluation report to a donor. However, even for published case studies, an external consultant is not essential, so
long as all your teammates are interested in learning from the process and the outcome.
Embarking on the research for your case study:

1 After choosing your case study topic, work with your team to generate a list of more specific things you
want to learn from this case study. For example, you might want to know how external stakeholders felt about
your role in the project. You might want to know how children perceived the use of a certain tool or mechanism in
the project. You might want to learn about programme participants’ reactions to certain events during the course of
the project.
2 Create a work plan for accomplishing the research. Divide the responsibilities among your teammates and set
deadlines. Set up a debriefing meeting after everyone has collected their part of the data.
3 Conduct a debriefing meeting. Bring all the data collected with you, and ensure that this meeting occurs soon after
the research and data are completed. Allow yourself and your teammates sufficient time to discuss the following
questions:
a. Without looking at the data, what are the key points we have learned from the research? (Be sure to type notes
or ask a note-taker to type them during the meeting).
b. Together, organize the findings into general groups or categories.
c. What key information, quotes, numbers, stories, etc. do we have from the data that supports these findings? Take
notes on where this information can be found in the data collection.
d. Draw conclusions. What do these findings and this information tell us about our topic? What can we learn from
this information that will affect our future work in this programme? What can we learn that can benefit the work
of other programmes, colleagues, organizations? What recommendations can be made? (Again, be sure to type
notes).
4 Collect the notes from the debriefing meeting and write a first draft of the case study. Use the attached
case study format as an outline to your writing. Share it with your colleagues to receive feedback. Share it with
programme participants and external stakeholders to receive their feedback.
5 Write your second/final draft on the basis of this feedback. Depending on your audience, you may want to
request an external editor review the case study before publication. Ensure that you have included a complete list
of the resources you have consulted, including the dates that interviews and focus groups were held.
6 Create and implement a dissemination plan for the case study. If you plan to use it for a training, create a few
discussion questions to go with it that can be discussed in a training session. You might consider creating a learning
event out of it by holding a brown bag with colleagues and partners, sharing findings, and distributing copies of
it. If planning meetings are occurring for upcoming programme work, ensure that this document is part of the
background reading. Be sure to provide copies of the case study to all participants in you research process.
Second Module – Annexes
Second Module – Annex 1: DRR Levels and Dimensions of Change 74
Second Module – Annex 1: DRR Levels

and Dimensions of Change
Program Effectiveness
DEFINITIONS of DRR Outcomes and
Framework Levels and Context Specific Examples
levels and Dimensions of Change
Dimensions of Change
the benefits that relate to a deepening of democratic process to improve transparency,
Democratic
accountability and participatory disaster management governance, especially for young citizens’
Outcomes
engagement and wellbeing
Citizens become Children’s DRR activities in the municipality

aware of their power of St. Bernard in the Philippines have served
and rights, and Changes on the level of to convince the municipal council of the
1. Citizenship use this power to rights holders, with the importance of children’s participation in
change effectively participate support of civil society, disaster risk management. There are now
in decision making vis-à-vis duty bearers. children’s representatives on all of the village
processes that reduce and the municipal disaster management
risks. councils.
In Bangladesh, the DRR project established

Changes in the a series of linked structures to facilitate
decision-making children’s representation and their
process towards participation in DRR at the community,
more involvement Changes on the level of school, Union and Upazila levels. At the
of young citizens, duty bearers with the national level,
2. Institutional or
more transparency, support of civil society Plan successfully lobbied for the inclusion of
Systems change
and more vis-à-vis duty bearers/ children in the Union Disaster Management
accountability of right holders Committees in the national Standing Order
disaster management on Disasters, and the inclusion of children’s
mechanisms/ participation in the national Comprehensive
frameworks. Disaster Management Programme’s (CDMP)
Community Risk Assessment (CRA) manual.
In Bangladesh, the children’s risk assessments
and DRR plans were integrated into the
Union DRR risk assessments and plans, which
were then consolidated at the Upazila level to
produce a DRR plan that was inclusive of the
children’s issues.
Changes to laws, In El Salvador, Plan is worked with the
policies, decrees, Changes on the level of Ministry of Education and all universities
etc. to integrate risk duty bearers with the offering a Bachelors Degree in Education for
3. Policy change
reduction at local, support of civil society basic education (grades 1 to 6), to include
national, and/or vis-à-vis right holders DRR as part of the standard Bachelors’
international levels curricula. This mandated curriculum includes
mandatory courses for future teachers on risk
management, child centred DRR, the school
protection plan, SPHERE and INEE minimum
standards, and general knowledge about
disaster emergency and response in regards
to school centres.
Development the benefits at individual and societal well being in support of disaster resilience based on
Outcomes behavioural, institutional and societal changes that take place over the medium to long term
In El Salvador, in early 2008, several houses in
Cerco de Pedra, La Libertad, were destroyed
in a flash flood. The young people’s and the
adult DRR committee had been trained in
the establishment and use of early warning
systems utilising pluviometers. Young children
(8-12 years old) who were not members of
increases in the community’s DRR committee were well
programme aware of the early warning systems that had
participants’ DRR been set up to alert the community in times of
Changes on the levels
knowledge, skills and heavy rain. When asked what they should do
of duty bearers, rights
1. Capacity change abilities, as a result if heavy rain started again, they said:
holders and/or civil
of training programs,
society. • First, look at the pluviometer
workshops,
awareness • Next, help people who live near the
campaigns, etc. river to take things out of the house
• After that, call each other by cell phone
• Then be ready to run to evacuation
areas, and
• Pray!
increase in the
number of citizens
accessing disaster
resilient public
services (e.g. Increased citizens benefiting from building
education, water codes enforced, environmental impact
and sanitation, assessments climate proofing, low carbon
health, and risk development, emergency drills, evacuation,
management) as HVCAs, etc.
a result of using In Sierra Leone, collaborating with the Office
disasters as an entry of National Security (ONS) Plan has continued
Changes on the level of
point for change. to support 11 Schools in Freetown, on the
2. Access to Public rights holders with the
This refers to roll-out of DRR lessons to students via teacher
Services change support of civil society,
increases in young training, provision of learning resources
vis-à-vis duty bearers.
citizens participating and supporting a DRR quiz competition
in disaster risk between the schools to stimulate learning
management as in a stimulating environment (55 children
an integral part of took part in the final round of the quiz
development services competition). This will contribute to increased
(e.g. HVCA and DRR access to higher quality DRR education
action planning, curricula.
and DRR awareness
raising, and wider
development issues).
In February 2006 a landslide occurred in
Catig, Liloan, Philippines. There were no
casualties, but the village was too dangerous
for the people to stay. An evacuation site was
set up while houses were constructed in a
new site with the help of the LGU and donors,
Resulting including Plan.
changes related
to risk reduction
and improved Discussion with the children revealed how
resilience to stressful the evacuation had been. They said
support sustainable that it had been difficult to find food as there
development and the was stealing of farm produce, the evacuation
realisation of child centre was chaotic, unsanitary and it was
rights –eg: increases difficult to go to school.
in child protection
before/during/after Changes on the level of
3. Well-being disasters; inclusion rights holders with the There was an active children’s association
change of children of all support of civil society, in the village. During the evacuation period
ages, abilities, and vis-à-vis duty bearers. children took action and actively helped to
gender; realisation keep the centre clean, took care of younger
of child survival children and lobbied the council to solve the
and development sanitation problem in the centre. They also
rights (reduction helped to clear the relocation site. These
in diseases, loss of activities led directly to the increased well
life, malnutrition; being of the children at the evacuation site.
improved children’s
educational
achievements and The children say that now they are able to
retention rates, etc). live peacefully again and they feel proud
because they helped to resolve their problems
together with the rest of the community. After
receiving training on disaster preparedness,
they no longer are afraid when it rains and
know what to do in case of emergency.
Second Module – Annex 2: DRR Theory of Change Diagram 77
Second Module – Annex 2: DRR Theory

of Change Diagram
Second Module – Annex 3: Child Centred DRR Outcomes 78
Second Module – Annex 3: Child Centred

DRR Outcomes
1. Governance (including participation, citizenship, democratic processes and spaces)
Disaster-resilience outcomes Changes and Indicators
Participation Participation
1. Children and young people (CYP) have opportunities to 1. Institutional Change: # of spaces created by and for
express their views on DRR in fora at the community, local, CYP to express their views on DRR (such as CYP officially
national and global levels. represented in disaster management meetings, CYP
granted regular meeting times with disaster management
decision-makers).
2. CYP are formally recognised in DRR structures that 2. Policy change: Policies are created to formally recognize
enforce disaster resilience at all levels. CYP participation/representation in DRR structures and
local and national government decision-making processes
3. National and local government policies, programmes, 3. Citizenship change: # of policies created with the
legislation, regulations and codes are developed with the participation of CYPs and which promote the rights of all
participation of CYP, communities and civil society and CYP before, during, and after disasters
promote the rights of all children before, during and after
disasters.
4. There is an increase in the level of voluntary 4. Access to services change: # of DRR activities
participation in DRR activities by community members. implemented with community members’ participation.
Organisational Development Organizational Development
5. There are active CYP organisations in the school, in 5. Access to services change: Increase from X to Y
which vulnerable girls and boys are represented, that the number of schools with the most vulnerable CYP
address DRR issues. represented that address DRR issues.
6. There are active community orgs that address DRR in 6. Access to services change: Increase from X to Y the
which CYP are represented. number of active community and CYP organizations that
address DRR in which CYPs are represented.
Partnerships Partnerships
7. There are active partnerships between CYP groups, 7. Citizenship change: increase in the number of
community organisations, local and national government active partnerships between CYP groups, community
and civil society stakeholders in which DRR roles, organisations, local government and civil society
responsibilities, authority and decision-making are clear. stakeholders in which DRR roles, responsibilities, authority
and decision-making are clear.
8. CSOs promote and strengthen the participation and 8. Institutional change: Increase in the number of CSO’s
representation of CYP in DRR at all levels. promoting CYP’s representation in DRR at all levels.
Advocacy Advocacy
9. CYP and community DRR groups understand relevant 9a. Capacity change: Increase in CYP and community
DRR legislation, regulations and procedures and are DRR groups’ understanding of relevant DRR legislation,
aware of their rights and the obligation of duty holders. regulations and procedures and increased awareness of
They lobby external agencies on DRR plans, priorities and their rights and the obligation of duty holders.
actions. 9b. Citizenship change: Increase in the number of CYP, civil
society and community groups lobbying external agencies
on DRR plans, priorities, and actions.

10. CSOs promote child centred DRR in local and national 10. Institutional change: Increase in # of CSOs promoting
government decision-making processes, as well as in global child-centred DRR in local and national government
policy processes. decision-making processes and global policy processes.
11. CSOs support the lobbying activities of CYPs and 11. Institutional change: Increase in # of CSOs supporting
communities on child centred DRR-related legislation, the DRR lobbying activities of CYPs and communities.
budget, policies and programmes.
Resource development Resource development
12. There are increased resources available for DRR at 12. Institutional change: Increase in resources made
the community level that have been committed from the available for DRR (financial, in-kind, technical support,
community, local and national government, donors and personnel) from local and national governments, civil
private sources. society, and community.
13. Systems are in place to ensure the transparent and 13. Institutional change: Increase in # of accountability
accountable management or oversight of DRR resources by and transparency mechanisms in place for of DRR resource
the community. management or oversight at the community level,
involving CYP.
2. Knowledge and Education

Awareness raising & Capacity building Awareness raising & Capacity building
1. CYP, including vulnerable girls and boys, are 1a. Access to services changes: Increased number of CYP
knowledgeable about disaster risks and how to manage participating in school and community based DRR training
them through school and community based training and and education activities.
education activities. 1b. Capacity changes: Increased awareness among CYP
about disaster risks and how to manage them.
1c. Institutional changes: Increased number of schools
and community bodies providing opportunities for CYP to
participate in awareness raising activities on DRR
2. Awareness-raising campaigns on DRR have been 2. Capacity changes: Increased number of community
conducted to the whole community with the participation members and CYPs reached by DRR awareness-raising
of CYPs using different forms of communication that are campaigns.
suitable for all ages, different abilities and gender and is
culturally appropriate.
3. The whole community is aware of and informed about 3. Capacity changes: Increased number of community
disaster risks and how to manage them. members demonstrating awareness about disaster risks and
how to manage them.
4. Community members exhibit positive attitudes and 4. Well-being changes: Increased number of community
behaviours towards the reduction of risk and to the members exhibiting positive attitudes and behaviours
participation of CYPs in DRR and disaster management. towards the reduction of risk and to the participation of
CYP in DRR and disaster management.
5. DRR is part of the school curriculum and is also included 5. Institutional changes: # of schools with DRR included
in non-formal education activities. and delivered in the school curriculum and # of
communities with DRR delivered via non-formal learning
activities.
6. Media organisations participate in communicating risks, 6. Institutional changes: Increase in the number and
measures to address them and the role of CYP in DRR. incidence of media organizations communicating risks,
measures to address them and the role of CYP in DRR.
Research and learning Research and learning

7. CYP have the skills to research, document and 7. Capacity changes: CYP demonstrate the skills to
communicate their DRR experiences to different audiences research, document, and communicate their DRR
using different forms of communication. experiences.
8. CYP and community groups regularly monitor and 8. Capacity changes: Increase in the number and incidence
evaluate the DRR activities in which they are involved and of CYP and community groups monitoring and evaluating
use the lessons learnt to modify future practice. the DRR activities in which they are involved and
updating/replicating these.
9. Academic institutions support local research using child 9. Institutional changes: Increase in the incidence of
friendly participative methods on the role of CYP in DRR academic institutions researching and sharing findings
and child centred DRR processes and practices and use the (through papers, presentations, etc) to increase awareness
findings to increase awareness and knowledge on the role and knowledge on the rights and role of CYP in DRR at
of CYP in DRR at national and international levels through national and international levels.
papers and presentations, and produce child-friendly
reports to inform CYP.
10. Scientific bodies investigate and share information 10. Capacity changes: Increase in reporting and dialogue
about disaster risks recognising the rights of all CYP with CYP about future disaster risks affecting CYP rights at
national and international levels
3. Risk assessment and planning

Disaster-resilience Outcomes Changes and Indicators
School and community vulnerability and capacity School and community vulnerability and capacity
assessments assessments
1. CYP conduct and/or participate in school, community, 1. Access to services changes – Increase in the number
and local government hazard, vulnerability, risk and of CYP conducting and/or participating in school and
capacity assessments. community HVCA assessments.
1b. Institutional change - Increase in demonstrated support
by local and national governments to participation of
children in community based risk assessment
2. Community DRR organisations facilitate community risk, 2. Institutional changes - Increase in the number
hazard, vulnerability and capacity assessments: of community DRR organisations facilitating HVCA
assessments.
a. that take account of the views of children 2a. Capacity changes – Increase in the number of HVCA
assessments conducted taking into account the views of
children
b. that take account of national hazard data and research 2b. Capacity changes – Increase in the number of HVCA
on future risks assessments conducted taking into account natural hazard
data and research on future risks.
c. that reflect the risks and vulnerabilities of children of all 2c. Capacity changes – Increase in the number of
ages, ability and gender, HVCA assessments conducted that reflect the risks and
vulnerabilities of children of all ages, ability, and gender.
d. that include child protection concerns. 2d. Capacity changes – Increase in the number of HVCA
assessments that include child protection concerns.
e. that are regularly updated 2e. Institutional changes – Increase in the number of HVCA
assessments regularly updated.
f. that are widely disseminated within the community and 2f. Institutional changes – Increase in the number of HVCA
to local government with the participation of CYP. assessments disseminated in the community and to the
local government with the participation of CYP.
g. results are widely known and understood by all, 2g. Capacity changes – Increase in the number of at-risk
including those at particular risk. individuals who know and understand the results of HVCA
assessments.
School and community DRR, disaster preparedness and School and community DRR, disaster preparedness and
contingency planning contingency planning
3. CYP conduct and/or participate in the preparation of 3a. Access to services change –increase in the number of
disaster risk reduction, preparedness and response plans. CYP conducting and/or participating in the preparation of
DRR, preparedness and response plans.
3b. Capacity change – increase in the number of CYP
knowledgeable of DRR, preparedness, and response plans.
3c. Well-being change – CYP knowledge and participation
in DRR preparedness and response plans result in reduced
risk for the wider community.
4. Risk Management and Vulnerability Reduction

Risk management and vulnerability reduction Risk management and vulnerability reduction
1. CYPs initiate or manage activities to reduce their risks 1a. Citizenship change – increase in the number of CYPs
and vulnerabilities in the school and community with the initiating or managing activities to reduce their risks and
support of adults. vulnerabilities at school and community level.
1b. Capacity change – increase in demonstrated
awareness among CYPs of actions that reduce their risk of
vulnerabilities.
2. The community conducts risk management and 2a. Access to services change – increase in the number of
vulnerability reduction activities: children participating in community risk management and
- with the participation of children vulnerability reduction activities.
- that strengthen children’s rights before, during and 2b. Well-being change – increase in community activities
after disasters that strengthen children’s rights within disaster context.
- that are integrated into community development 2c. Institutional change – # of communities with
activities. development activities integrating risk management and
risk reduction interventions.
- CSOs mainstream disaster risk management and
vulnerability reduction into their development 2d. Institutional change –# of CSOs with development
programmes programmes that integrate risk management and
vulnerability reduction activities 3. Policy change - # of
local government development programmes integrating
risk management and vulnerability reduction activities
3. Local government mainstreams risk management 3 & 4. Institutional change - % increase in allocation
and vulnerability reduction activities that recognise and of resources by local and national government towards
improve the realisation of the rights of children into its initiatives that promote the realisation of rights of children.
development programmes. 3 & 4. Policy change – # of national government policies
4. National government Departments mainstream risk and programmes with child centred risk management and
management and vulnerability reduction that recognise vulnerability reduction activities.
and improve the realisation of the rights of children into
their policies and programmes.
5. CSOs support the risk management and vulnerability 5. Institutional changes – increase in # of CSOs
reduction activities implemented by children and demonstrating support for risk management and
communities. vulnerability reduction activities implemented by children.
5. Disaster Preparedness, Response and Recovery

Preparedness activities Preparedness activities
1. CYP, including vulnerable girls and boys, participate in 1. Access to services change – increase in the number of
preparedness activities in the school and community in CYP participating in preparedness activities.
accordance with the identified hazards, vulnerabilities and 2. Citizenship change – increase in the number of CYPs
risks. participating in the establishment and maintaining of
2. CYP participate in the establishment of adequate and adequate and appropriate early warning systems.
appropriate Early Warning Systems that are based on local 3. Well-being changes – increase in community members
realities and that are known by the whole community. including CYP aware of and with greater access to
3. Evacuation routes and emergency shelters are identified, evacuation routes and emergency shelters.
maintained and known by the whole community and can
be used safely by children and other at-risk groups.
Disaster response Disaster response
4. CYP participate according to their evolving capacities in 4. Citizenship change – increase in the number of CYP
local response and recovery activities. participating according to their evolving capacities in local
response and recovery activities.
5. The community is able to implement their disaster 5a. Capacity change – # of communities with
response plans, which are supported by effective, timely demonstrated ability to implement disaster response
emergency response services, based on internationally plans supported by effective, timely emergency response
recognised minimum standards that reach all affected services (in line with INEE and SPHERE standards).
community members and are prioritised according to the 5b. Well-being change – increase in #/percentage of
need. affected community members reached by emergency
response services.
5c. Well-being change – increase in child protection
services provided in emergencies (child friendly spaces,
psychosocial support, education in emergencies)
5d. Well-being change – decreased loss of life, damage to
livelihoods and assets, and disease.
DRR in Disaster Recovery DRR in Disaster Recovery
6. DRR priorities are incorporated into community 6. Institutional change – demonstrated change in
recovery plans/activities community recovery plans/activities that reflect DRR
priorities
Local and National Government Local and National Government
7. Local government prioritises the concerns of CYPs in 7. Policy change or Institutional change – policy is
disaster preparedness, response and recovery activities. created or space is created mandating local government
to prioritise concerns of CYPs in disaster preparedness,
response and recovery activities.
8. National government departments address the issues 8. Policy change or institutional change – demonstrated
of children and promote their participation during policy created or space created mandating and
preparedness, response and recovery activities implementing national governments to address the issues
of children and promote their participation.
Civil Society Civil Society

9. CSOs support the rights of children and promote their 9. Institutional change – increase in # of CSOs supporting
participation during preparedness, response and recovery the rights of children and promoting their participation
activities. during preparedness, response and recovery activities.
6. Impact on children’s rights (Long term Outcomes)

Survival Development Protection Participation
• Prevention of • Increased confidence and • More positive view of life • Increased credibility with
disease among skills • Take better care of adults
children before, • Increased ability to themselves • Improved status of
during and after express themselves children within the
disasters. • Less likely to join gangs
• Leadership skills community
• Reduction in injury • Increased protection of
• Improved school children before, during • An increased sense of
and loss of life belonging and doing
among children attendance and and after disasters
achievement (including risks of something good for the
during disasters. community
• Able to resume schooling exploitation, abduction,
• nutrition and recruitment into fighting • Children who have
infant health more quickly after
disasters forces, sexual violence) participated in the
care addressed in programme elected as
regards to chronic • ensure children’s • Opportunity to express
their emotions following youth leaders
extensive risks ability to play for social
development traumatic events. • Children initiate their own
disaster risk reduction
activities
• Increased participation of
children in community risk
reduction activities before,
during and after disasters
Organizational role: To what extent has your organization contributed to these changes?
Non-discrimination and inclusion: Who benefits from the change? Who doesn’t? Why? (With special attention to gender,
age, cultural diversity, disability and vulnerability
Environmental impact: Have the changes impacted positively or negatively on the environment?
Sustainability: To what extent will the change be sustained, how resilient is the change?
Second Module – Annex 4: Context-specific example of a country program integrating DRR and Climate Change Adaptation – Plan Bolivia 85
Second Module – Annex 4: Context-

specific example of a country program
integrating DRR and Climate Change
Adaptation – Plan Bolivia
From: Plan International Inc. Bolivia – Country Strategic Framework CSPIII (January 2010 - December 2014) – Final Version
20-11-09
Programme Goal:
Excluded children, adolescents, youths, women and families who suffer from greater degrees of rights violations increase
their resilience14 to the effects of climate change and disaster situations15, with a rights-based and culturally sensitive
approach.
Programme strategies and objectives

Managing Risk Reduction (MRR)
Strategies Objectives (Results)

Civil S1. Lobby duty-bearers of rights to create safe and protective R1. Communities and municipalities
Society environments (including Safe Hospitals), and have the capacities with resilience capacity to face
of resilience and risk reduction and adaptation to climate change, disasters, climate change and
within the framework of international action: Strategic Framework epidemics, in safe and protective
for Strengthening the Emergency and Disaster Preparedness and environments, participative planning
Response Systems in Bolivia, and others and executing prevention programmes
S2. Promote and facilitate the strengthening of child, adolescent, and projects in related areas and
youth, women and family organisations so that they can exercise according to context.
their rights and increase their safety, protection, resilience to R2. Education districts incorporate
disasters, risk reduction management, adaptation to climate risk reduction management into the
change and epidemics curricula19, as well as adaptation to
S3. Facilitate and promote participative community-municipal climate change
management (COEMs), departmental management (COEDs)
Rights- and inter-institutional management for integrated multi-sector R3. Children, adolescents, youth,
holders programmes for disaster response, risk reduction management, women and families participate
adaptation to climate change and epidemics. risk reduction and climate change
adaptation processes in safe and
S4. Participate in and promote networks and alliances for the protective environments
drafting and implementation of public policies for disaster
Duty- response, risk reduction management and adaptation to climate R4. Communities and civil society
bearers change in favour of children, adolescents, youths and families. organisations lobby for the inclusion
S5. Facilitate integrated care for children, pregnant mothers, of public policies on risk reduction
breastfeeding mothers, people over 65 and the disabled living management and adaptation to climate
in adverse or disaster situations; this takes place within safe and change with protection and security,
protective environments in families, camps and communities, in national, departmental and local
promoting commitment from parents, main caregivers, leaders, legislation (implement the Hyogo20
community authorities and municipal authorities. Action Plan)
S6. Develop and implement a communication strategy for R5. Alliances with partners at
different publics/audiences that will strengthen relationship international, national, departmental
building and education for development. and municipal levels facilitate the
S7. Facilitate classroom projects, participation in activities, health implementation of risk reduction
fairs on epidemics and other types of fairs at high-risk community management and adaptation to climate
schools at community, municipal, departmental and other levels, change projects
promoting MRR and ACC.
S8. Introduce ICT in order to develop alert and follow-up systems
for disaster prevention, mitigation, response, rehabilitation and
reconstruction activities.
Adaptability to Climate Change (ACC)
Strategies Results
Duty- S9. Water resources. Promote the appropriate, efficient R1. State institutions at national,
bearers and sustainable use of water resources (integrated watershed departmental and municipal levels
management), through capture (water harvesting), storage, strengthened in their capacities to
protection and rational usage, thus guaranteeing water security adapt to climate change through
(availability, access, quality and integrated management). policies and institutional structures for
S10. Agriculture and food security. Lobby for adaptation of the sustainable management of natural
agricultural systems and livelihood strategies linked to rapidly resources and to create resilience
changing agro-ecological conditions, through the use and spread among the most vulnerable population
of appropriate technologies, research, exchange and sharing groups.
of best nutritional, agricultural and livestock practices (soil
Rights- conservation, diversification of genetic resources , loss reduction, R2. Municipal units for planning,
holders tolerance to floods and salinity, adaptation of growing/production productive development, agriculture,
cycles) as well as non-agricultural practices (appropriate use of nutrition, and the environment are
energy in the transformation of products, fair trade and other strengthened to generate public
activities). policies, implement and monitor
sustainable development programmes,
S11. Human health. Promote and lobby for the development and adapt production systems.
of health sector management models that are coordinated with
Civil environmental programmes in order to reduce risk factors, R3. Education Districts and Health
Society lifestyle changes, studies and surveillance of emerging and re- Boards participate and lead integrated
emerging illnesses. adaptation programmes.
S12. Ecosystems and biodiversity. Promote the sustainable
management of ecosystems, conservation and development of R5. High-risk communities civil society
natural resources and biodiversity, provision of environmental organisation involved in managing their
services, poverty reduction, human well-being and the exercise of environments lobby for enforcement
rights. of public policies for adaptation to
S13. Human settlements and energy. Promote advocacy and climate change and the redistribution of
lobbying actions for well-planned, safe human settlements, environmental credits and liabilities.
territorial ordering and the gradual change over of energy sources R6. Alliances with international,
from fossil fuels, firewood and organic wastes to clean and national, departmental and municipal
sustainable sources (biogas, wind, water and solar). partners facilitate the implementation
S14. Participation. Promote inter-institutional efforts of integrated ACC programmes.
to undertake joint actions among State, civil society and
development cooperation actors, along with the educational
and academic communities and the local community; promote
dialogue about knowledges, comparing technical and scientific
knowledge with local traditional or ancestral knowledge,
providing arenas to build new knowledges and best practices
(research-action from stakeholders themselves).
S15. Integrated education. Promote the use and dissemination
of knowledge and innovations, through communications and
education, developing stakeholders’ own capacities to build a
culture of security and resilience, respect and promotion of a
healthy environment and sustainable production systems that
reduce vulnerability.
Results Indicators
Managing Risk Reduction
1. % of municipalities with Municipal Emergency Operations Centres (COEMs) using Risk
Reduction Management (MRR) and Adaptation to Climate Change (ACC)
Preparation 2. % of municipalities with Risk Management Units (RMU).
3. % of municipalities with budgets for MRR and ACC
4. % of municipal investment in MRR and ACC
5. % of families with MRR practices
Mitigation 6. % of at-risk communities that participate RRM and ACC actions
7. % of educational management tools that include RRM and ACC.
8. % of youths, men and women in emergency situations that report violence and seek out
care services
9. % of children and adolescents in emergency situations in each school grade that report or
Response show signs of violence
10. % of children normal size/weight for their age during emergencies
11. % of youths and adults in emergency situations in each school grade that report or show
signs of violence
12. % of affected families that have recovered their livelihood means within the expected time
Rehabilitation frame
13. % of homes relocated and with more protection measures
Results indicators
Adaptability to Climate Change
1. % of municipalities with strengthened municipal units for planning, productive development,
agriculture and livestock, nutrition, and environmental
2. % increase in public spending on ACC projects and programmes.
3. % of municipalities with education districts and health boards involved in integrated
Duty bearers
adaptation programmes
4. % increase in diversification of agricultural and non-agricultural production
5. % increase in preserved surface areas and volumes of water that are used and managed
sustainably
1. % of municipalities with strengthened municipal units for planning, productive development,
agriculture and livestock, nutrition, and environmental
2. % increase in public spending on ACC projects and programmes.
3. % of municipalities with education districts and health boards involved in integrated
Rights holders
adaptation programmes
4. % increase in diversification of agricultural and non-agricultural production
5. % increase in preserved surface areas and volumes of water that are used and managed
sustainably
9. % of at-risk communities that implement adaptation measures in their production systems
and livelihoods
Civil Society
10. % of vulnerable municipalities with inter-institutional networks formed and integrated ACC
programmes
Second Module – Annex 5: Plan UK Sample Log Frame
Submission using DFID’s log frame format
DRAFT/ Building resilient communities through young people
INDICATIVE PPA
LOG FRAMEi
GOAL Indicator G1 Baselineii + year Milestone 1 (end of Milestone 2 (end of Target (end of PPA
PPA year 1) PPA year 2) year 3)
Children in Lives lost due to disasters 4,661 (2009)

countries at high (disaggregated by gender, age
Source1
risk of disasters groups and hazard)
grow up in safe EM-DAT International Disaster Database
and resilient IFRC World Disasters Report
communities
UNISDR Country Reports
National Country Reports
Indicator G2 Baseline + year Milestone 1 (end of Milestone 2 (end of Target (end of PPA
Financial losses due to US$4.582billion
disasters (2009)
Second Module – Annex 5: Plan UK Sample Log Frame Submission using DFID’s log frame format
Source
EM-DAT International Disaster Database
IFRC World Disasters Report
UNISDR Country Reports
National Country Reports
i
Indicative only; frameworks can be adjusted/updated in the period January/February 2011 if your application is successful.
ii
If your PPA application is successful, the full logframe will need to be finalised and agreed by DFID before the PPA start date (i.e. by 1 April 2011), including all baseline data, milestones and targets.
1
Multiple sources needed to verify for accuracy, triangulation, and the inclusion of small scale disasters
89
PURPOSE Indicator P1 Baseline + year Milestone 1 (end of Milestone 2 (end of Target (end of PPA Assumptions
To promote “Child participation in DRM” To be gathered in Average of 3.5 out of All targets
child-centred score per country3 2011 VFL report 5 (see note below) are indicative
DRM in national based on an
Source
education systems estimate of
and community Global Network for Disaster Reduction “Views from the Frontline” survey results that
resilience strategies Indicator P2 Baseline + year Milestone 1 (end of Milestone 2 (end of Target (end of PPA could be
in 8 countries PPA year 1) PPA year 2) year 3) achieved in a
at high risk of programme
disasters2 by 2014 # of communities adhering Baseline data tbc 70% of total # costing
to UNISDR standards for of communities £3million
Resilient Cities & Safer Schools participating
Source
Plan monitoring, benchmarks defined by UNISDR standards
2
The 8 countries are Bangladesh, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Philippines
3
Note: Views from the Frontline 2011 survey includes an indicator on children’s participation in DRM. The scoring system used is one to five. One = no attempt to understand the differing needs and priorities of children and young people.
Five = Children actively engaged as effective agents of change at community level & data is collected and disaggregated according to age criteria.
90
OUTPUT 1 Indicator 1.1 Baseline + year Milestone 1 (end of Milestone 2 (end of Target (end of PPA Assumptions
Policymakers and # of DRM policy instruments Baseline data tbc 20
humanitarian more responsive to the needs
Source
actors demonstrate and rights of girls and boys
increased Policy instruments reviewed against Plan-defined Child centred DRM M&E framework
commitment to Indicator 1.2 Baseline + year Milestone 1 (end of Milestone 2 (end of Target (end of PPA
and devote greater PPA year 1) PPA year 2) year 3)
funding for child-
centred DRM % of total government budget Baseline data tbc 3%
allocated to DRM
Source
Ministries of Finance/ National budget statistics
Indicator 1.3 Baseline + year Milestone 1 (end of Milestone 2 (end of Target (end of PPA
# of DRM decision making 0 39
fora where
Source
Child-centred DRM is
promoted Project reports
91
Disaster resilience # of new/improved national Baseline data tbc 16
integrated in the policies/tools on school safety
Source
national education
system Policy documents on disaster resilient building codes
MOE policies
# of national DRM curricula Baseline data tbc 6
that are child friendly and

Source
gender sensitive
Policy documents on disaster resilient building codes
MOE policies
# of countries with teacher Baseline data tbc 6
training programmes
Source
covering DRM and education
in emergencies, which Policy documents on disaster resilient building codes
mainstream child rights, child MOE policies

protection and gender
92
Local authorities, # of communities in which Baseline data tbc 160
communities and girls and boys contribute to
Source
schools have the formal planning/designing
capacity to manage and implementing of DRM Project assessments
child-centred DRM strategies Community plans
processes
Indicator 3.2 Baseline + year Milestone 1 Milestone 2 Target + year
# of schools with children & Baseline data tbc 320
gender sensitive DRM plans in
Source
place, resourced & reviewed
annually Project assessments

MOE reports
# of schools delivering child Baseline data tbc 320
centred DRM curricula
Source
Project assessments
MOE reports
93
Children are # of Communities with child 0 160
actively involved in led accountability mechanisms
Source
DRM accountability assessing DRM service
processes delivery Project assessments
# of girls and boys 0 12,800
participating in accountability
Source
mechanisms
Project assessments

% of children who feel Baseline data tbc 65%
confident that their concerns
will be acted upon by DRM
providers Project assessments
94
Third Module – Action Planning with

Children on Disaster Risk Reduction
Third Module – Action Planning with Children on Disaster Risk Reduction 96
About this Module

This section of Plan International’s Child-Centred Disaster Risk Reduction Toolkit contains guidelines and tools for action
planning with children on DRR. It contains the following:
• An introduction about action planning with children
• Guidelines for action planning with children
• A short module for getting started on action planning with children
• A manual for conducting small scale projects with children using seed grants created by Plan El Salvador (Third
Module – Annex 1)
• A guide for planning, resource mobilization, and project implementation by Plan Bangladesh (Third Module – Annex 2)
Introduction
The tools provided in this section are meant to be used in conjunction with a child-centred hazard, vulnerability and
capacity assessment (HVCA) and should not be used in isolation. As mentioned in the “Training Children on DRR using
the HVCA” module of this toolkit, child-led actions should be one of the next steps of a comprehensive child-centred DRR
programme that includes work with the larger community to support child-led initiatives.
Action planning and small scale grants management with children provide children the opportunity to learn key life skills,
including: teamwork budgeting, resource mobilisation, planning, monitoring and evaluation, decision-making, and assigning
roles and responsibilities. Engaging children in these activities can impact them positively both from the effectiveness of the
plans and projects in reducing disaster risks, and from the process of participation in the activities themselves.
The role of a non-governmental organization in action planning is very important and challenging at the same time.
An NGO, such as Plan International, must balance between being the provider of financial, material, technical and
organizational support and serving as a facilitator that supports child-centred community empowerment and mobilization,
rather than directing the children or the community. Sustainable DRR programmes are best established when NGOs work
to build the capacity of local groups and organizations to a level where they can generate their own resources, lead their
own risk reduction activities, and access their entitlements from local governments. Communities that have participated in
HVCA processes, when asked what they would do differently in the future, have stated that “they would wish for a stronger
focus on the benefits of working united and on support to make their own decisions before starting construction activities
and DRR and livelihoods trainings.”
When conducting action planning with children, it is also the role of the NGO and facilitators to make sure that the
children’s action plans are shared with the adults of the community, either through sharing the outcomes of their
implemented plans (such as in small scale projects), or through integrating their plans with adult DRR action plans.

Twigg, J. And Bottomley, H. (November 2010). Disaster Risk Reduction NGO Inter-Agency Group Learning Review. Pending.
Guidelines for Action Planning with Children

Action planning with children requires many of the skills and considerations needed for training and facilitating monitoring
and evaluation with children.
C haracteristics of Child-Friendly Action Planning
When conducting action planning with children it is imperative to ensure:

• Child protection: the meeting environment is safe; facilitators and/or consultants are trusted to work with
children; parental consent for participation is obtained.
• Child participation: the activities enable children’s views to be drawn out; children’s views are respected by the
facilitator and fellow participants; no child is excluded from participation in the group; children’s individual sharing of
opinions must also be kept confidential (see below, “Best Interests of the Child,” for more information).
• Child engagement: the planning activities are fun, interactive, and age-appropriate.
Best interests of the child

Plan International has seven value statements that guide its child centred work and its partnerships and relationships. The
first value is that we will always act in the best interests of the child. In the context of an HVCA, and depending on the
political context, children may be at risk when they identify actions to address their vulnerabilities which in turn contest
the status quo or the political economy. Their individual views may put them at risk if, in discussions, they challenge power
relations and address equity issues. Acting in the best interests of the child in these situations includes keeping in mind the
community’s political contexts and planning accordingly to avoid situations that might put children’s safety at risk or that
make them feel like they will lose potential program benefits. In addition to keeping individual children’s views confidential,
this could include conducting separate sessions for children in different groups where equity issues can come up and can
create situations of risk (eg: separate boys and girls groups). Facilitators and/or consultants should work with colleagues
and other stakeholders in advance to assess these types of risks and plan accordingly to minimize them.
When conducting action planning with children, groups separated by gender may not be practical. Therefore, it is
important to ensure that the opinions of boys and girls in a planning session are taken into full consideration, and that no
one gender dominates the discussion, the decision-making, and the control over resources.
Power Dynamics
When facilitating action planning with children, the facilitator(s) and their organizations should carefully analyse the power
dynamics of the community and of the children’s group, particularly when resources are involved (even in small amounts
like those for small scale projects). Within the children’s group, the facilitator should ensure that no one group or gender
dominates the decision-making process, the leadership roles, or the control over resources. Similarly, when children need to
work with adults to implement a small scale project or to cooperate with them on a larger risk reduction effort, the adults
should be sensitized to the important role children can play (where possible). Just as with children in advocacy, children
implementing DRR actions could be seen as threatening the status quo, and these issues must be considered before
implementation.
Similarly, children should be encouraged to assess themselves who are the influencing powers in their communities so that
they can work to channel those influencing powers towards their goals and ensure these considerations are integrated in
their planning process. Part of the action plan may include steps for the children to use to influence those important actors.

Seven value statements guide our work and relationships:
• We will always act in the best interests of the child.
• We respect child rights and human rights and we believe in everyone's innate and inalienable dignity as human beings regardless of age, gender, race, color,
ethnicity, religion, class, nationality, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation or disability.
• We are ethical, honest, transparent, and place a high value on integrity.
• We create the conditions in our work, in our activities and in our organisation for personal empowerment, especially of children and the most marginalised.
• We acknowledge that we cannot solve problems of poverty alone but only through teamwork and mutual partnerships.
• We are accountable to all of our stakeholders in our communication, finances, performance measures, and results and strive for effectiveness, sustainability,
and efficiency in everything we do. We adhere to recognised international standards.
• We strive for continuous learning and improvement. We listen to new ideas and encourage entrepreneurial activities, innovation, creativity, and change.
http://plan-international.org/about-plan/how-we-work/values-1
Facilitator qualifications
A facilitator of action planning sessions with children should:
1 Have knowledge of child rights, of DRR and climate change concepts and tools, and of the planning, monitoring and
evaluation framework
2 Have ability and experience of conducting participatory sessions with children
3 Be prepared to learn from children
4 Abide by their organization’s child protection policy
Co-facilitation of sessions with children, particularly if external consultants are involved, helps to build trust in the room. It
can also help ensure child protection. Engaging other children in the facilitation of action planning sessions can also provide
better outcomes, especially as the goal of the sessions are for the participating children to lead their own DRR activities.
If a child or youth leader is chosen as a co-facilitator, preparation time should be spent with him or her to work on
participatory facilitation skills, review DRR concepts, and plan for the division of responsibilities. Keep in mind that the child
or youth co-facilitator’s time must also be respected. The child or youth should not be over-worked and should not be given
administrative responsibilities that are the adult facilitator’s job.
during the process to document all ideas and discussions. The note-taker should be prepared, together with the facilitators,
to foresee when important ideas and opinions are shared during the sessions.
Inclusion: All children in the session should be included in the process. Facilitators must be able to manage exclusion
of children, either the natural exclusion of more introverted children, the cultural expectations of different genders, the
discouraging behaviour of children towards each other (such as teasing), and making accommodations for children with
disabilities and other special needs (e.g.: most vulnerable/poorest).
The Participants
The participants in an action planning session should be the children who took part in the HVCA process and also those
who will also be participating in the implementation of the action. Facilitators should be careful to include marginalized
children, and make appropriate accommodations for illiterate children, children with disabilities, etc. When faced with mixed
groups, the facilitator must take great care to show respect to all children, and figure out ways to draw in underprivileged
children and affirm their thoughts and opinions, as well as ensure they take leadership roles when the opportunity arises.
Timing
In addition to the right to participate, children have a right to learn, and a right to play. All efforts should be made to
conduct action planning sessions with children, as well as implementation of the actions themselves, during times when
school is not in session. Alternatively, if the action planning involves engagement with their schools, these sessions and the
ensuing activities should be integrated into school curriculum work. Keep in mind that in this case, out-of-school children
will be excluded from the process.
Compensation
Compensating children for their participation in DRR actions is a difficult issue. It is especially difficult in the case of
action planning and implementation, because it often involves resource mobilization. Most adults engaged in program
implementation are paid staff or consultants, and so their work is compensated. However, monetary compensation of
children for their participation could be construed as child labour; no compensation could be construed as exploitation.
Thus, appropriate forms of compensating children for their time in participation can include: providing a meal, paying for
their transportation, accommodation if required, and giving a small ‘thank you’ gift such as school notebooks, pens, or
other educational items. In addition, gaining the voluntary involvement of other adult members of the community can
strengthen the work the children do.
Action Planning with Children: Getting Started

An introductory action planning session with children can naturally conclude an HVCA conducted with them. In
approximately 20-30 minutes, a facilitator can discuss the following questions with children, documenting their responses
to refer to later:
a. Can we prevent a hazard? Or can we prevent the impacts of the hazards?
b. If I am an adult, what would I do to prevent disasters?
c. If I am a child (or as a child), what would I do to prevent disasters?
d. How could the voices of children be heard by adults?
e. What will I (or we) do to prevent disasters,
i. In the next one week?
ii. In the next one month?
iii. In the next six months?
The outcome of such a discussion would lead to appropriate next steps that the children could volunteer to participate in.
If the discussion tends towards advocacy related work, see the advocacy with children section for a framework, guidelines,
case studies, and a module used by Plan Cambodia for doing advocacy with children.
Small Scale Projects Using Seed Grants

One method used successfully by Plan International for child-led DRR work is providing seed grants to children’s groups to
conduct their own small scale prevention, mitigation or adaptation projects. Leading these projects provides children with
the resources and empowerment to manage their own initiated activities and budgets. In addition, the outcomes of these
projects can also prove to incredulous adult community members or local government that children’s participation in DRR
does indeed lead to greater community resilience.
It is important to consider community power dynamics when implementing small scale projects using seed grants with
children. Seed grants, however small, are still resources that children have access to in what are often resource-poor
communities. The second ‘key ideas’ section of Appendix 1 discusses this further, focusing on having the children assess
who might work against them on their small scale project, and how they can overcome that.
The process for managing the seed grants and expenditures varied from country to country. With Plan Philippines,
children’s groups specified their requested amount, and it was deposited into the groups’ bank accounts where they could
withdraw the money to make their purchases. In Plan Indonesia, the children’s groups proposed their requested amount
to their adult group facilitator, who sent it to Plan. Plan transferred the funding to the facilitator’s bank account and the
children spent it based on their proposal. Plan Bangladesh procured the funding requests on behalf of the children’s groups.
Plan Sierra Leone put the specified amount of money into the account of the corresponding community’s adult association,
with the caveat that it could only be spent on what the children specified. Plan El Salvador managed in a similar way, but
also provided training to the children’s groups on budget management and resource mobilisation.
Appendix 1 contains a manual produced by Plan El Salvador for managing small scale projects with children. It uses the
problem tree/solution tree process to narrow down the issues that the children tackle with their small scale grant, as well
as activities for planning the project, managing the budget, monitoring and evaluating the project, and sharing lessons
learned.
Planning, Resource Mobilization, and Implementation

Child-centred DRR action planning can also take the form of action planning together with adults community-based groups
to implement risk reduction activities together. This approach may allow for larger scale and longer-term action and greater
participation of children in adult-centred decision making.
Appendix 2 contains sections of Plan Bangladesh’s Child-Centred Disaster Risk Reduction guide. It includes modules that can
be conducted with adults, children and youth representing NGOs, CBOs, and children and youth groups.
The planning modules include problem tree analysis, risk reduction options, stakeholder mapping (which is also a component
of the child-centred HVCA module), risk reduction plan, stakeholder analysis and validation of the plan with local community
members (parents, teachers, and other community members) and local government (in Bangladesh’s case, the Union
Parishad).
The resource mobilization module includes a resource analysis matrix and a module for analyzing the risk reduction plan using
this matrix.
Finally, the implementation section includes a chart on which an implementation plan can be drawn, steps for the implementation
process, and references to the appropriate sections for monitoring and evaluating the project.
Third Module – Annexes
Third Module – Annex 1: Plan El Salvador – Implementing Small Scale Projects to Reduce our Risks: Guide for Youth Groups 102
Third Module – Annex 1: Plan El Salvador

Implementing Small Scale Projects to
Reduce our Risks: Guide for Youth Groups
Let’s talk about ….
Basic terms of a small scale project

What is a project?
A project is an idea taken into action by means of an ordered set of activities with the purpose of satisfying needs or solving
problems, within a specific time frame and with available resources.
Resources are all the material things we need in order to implement the project and/or all the people who will support us
during the project’s different activities and stages.
What do we call a small scale project?
We call a project a small scale project when the project will solve our problem with few resources in a short period of
time.
A small scale project will take us from a present undesirable situation to a desirable situation that we will obtain in the
future. In order to make this change, it is necessary to develop 4 important steps in our small scale project, called the
“project cycle”:
Diagram 1: The Project Cycle
We talk about a cycle since what we learn from our completed project we will be able to gain new ideas that will help us
resolve other problems in the community – through small scale projects and other opportunities. In addition, the community
will gain more confidence in us to be able to make even more important changes.
Key ideas …
- It is important that in each of these project cycle stages, the participation of girls and boys, youth and adults, Young adults
and people with special capacities take advantage of the knowledge and capacities that each can contribute.
- We should remember that we will never reach total agreement on everything, but it is important that we reach a consensus
for the best option to execute the project.
Let’s talk about….

Identifying the Project
In this stage we identify and prioritize what are the main problems the community is facing regarding disaster risks.
We can use two ways to identify our problems:
a. Identification of the problem through a participatory community assessment.
b. Identification of the root causes of the problem through the use of the “problem tree” and a “solution tree.”
a. Participatory Community Assessment
There are several tools that we can use to make a community assessment. These include historical calendars, risk and capacity
maps, transect walks through the community, stakeholder analysis, etc. These tools help us to understand our problems and
reflect on the ways we can transform them through change actions.
In order to develop these activities in a clear way, they can be documented through a vulnerability and capacity analysis
(VCA). The VCA is a tool for community use that serves to analyze the vulnerabilities and capacities existing in the community,
and how from such an analysis they can be transformed into capacities through change actions, and who are the ones who
will be involved. See the HVCA section of this toolkit.
b. Problem Tree and Solution Tree
If we do not have resources to conduct a community assessment, we can use a problem tree and a solution tree.
What is a problem tree?
A problem tree is an activity we use to help us identify our main problems and the situations that cause them. This way,
we will be able to work on identifying solutions to address these causes.
What is a solution tree?
A solution tree is an activity we use to help us find the solutions to the problems we identified through the problem tree;
in this way we are able to visualize our desired future situation for the community.
A ctivity: The Problem Tree
Note to facilitator: This activity must be linked with the disaster risks that were identified when the children
participated in the HVCA process. If it is not linked, the discussion of “problems” could lead to all sorts of community
issues that may not be related to risk reduction.
What do we need?
- Sheets of Bond paper
- Markers
- Coloured cards
Time: 2 hours
How do we do it?
1. On pieces of paper, we write our individual ideas of the problems that we have in our community.
2. We stick the pieces of paper on the wall.
3. We identify the problems that are similar or related, and we group them together.
4. We look for how the problems are related to each other and construct a “tree” where:
...the problems are represented in the trunk,
...the origins (or causes) of the problems are in the roots
...and the consequences of those problems are in the leaves.
…We can use arrows to see the causes and their relationships with the problems, and what problems are related to
what effects.
5. Reflection with the participants:

• How did we feel about this activity?
• Do these problems affect all of the community?
• Do they affect boys and girls more?
A ctivity: The Solution Tree
What do we need?
- Markers
- Coloured cards
- Crayons
Time: 2 hours
How do we do it?
1. On pieces of paper we write our individual ideas of the different activities and actions that we believe can contribute
to solving our problems. Also we write the positive results that we hope for our community.
2. Those participants who cannot read and write can present their thoughts through drawings.
3. We stick these pieces of paper on the wall.
4. We identify all those that are similar or are related and we group them together.
5. We construct a new tree of solutions where:
… the solutions are represented in the trunk
… the actions to reach these solutions are in the roots.
… the positive consequences we wish for our community are in the leaves.
6. Reflection with the participants:
• How did we feel during this activity?
• Do we believe that the solutions are correct?
• Have we considered the opinion of women and men, girls and boys?
Below is an illustration of a problem tree:
Key Ideas
To select the solution from among all the alternatives that the children came up with, we must ask:
- Which of the solutions is within our reach now? In addition, we must prioritize the solutions so that we choose the
ones that are most possible for us to implement. We can do this by voting, or using a ranking activity.
- Do we have people who can help us implement the solution? The participation of members of the community (boys,
girls, and adults) is a key element for the development of any initiative; in addition we must consider a process where
boys and girls who are in school or not in school, men and woman and duty bearers taking part too.
- Will we be able to obtain all the necessary resources? The implementation of any small scale project requires
resources, but we will not always have the money to execute them. Several alternative solutions exist. One alternative
is to look for funds in the same community where the actions will take place.
Another alternative is to look for the resources that are available within the community; this includes: people that are
able to help us implement each activity, and, in addition, consider that there are other actors present in the community
or nearby that can support us in the proposed solution. It is important to take into account our relationship with the
local governments, with cooperating organizations (such as schools, businesses, etc.), and with non-governmental
organizations, with whom there are common shared objectives that are present in the area and have an interest in
supporting us. Not all the solutions come from outside our community. We should promote that the community is able to
solve its own problems, and that we will then have lasting solutions.
- Who might be against our solution?
In any new initiative, we can always find resistance, but since in the assessment of the problem we involved the whole
community, we should have greater overall support. This shows the importance of working to sensitize the community
so that we are all working towards a clear solution that we can all understand. Gaining community support can be done
through awareness raising during school assemblies, radio programs, and other community activities.
The sum of small changes in the community can help us to achieve great changes in our future!
Let’s talk about …

Designing the Project
In this stage of designing the small scale project, we will identify two kinds of solutions to the problem that we have identified
and prioritized. The development of ideas into a project can be as simple as responding to a series of questions that will help
us design our project, such as:
• What do we want to do?
Name of the Project: that we want to implement.
• Why do we want to do this project?
Rationale of the Project: review what we decided in the assessment and why we chose that problem to solve, based on
what was identified in the first stage.
• What do we do this for?
This is what we call the Objectives of the Project: what we want to achieve with this small scale project when it is
accomplished.
• What will have happened when we implement the Project?
These are the Results that we hope for at the end of the Project, the changes that we see in the community that reflect
the achievements of the Project.
• What could go wrong?
Risks. Not everything is in our hands, and we must consider the possible problems that we might face when
implementing the activities.
• Where will we do it?

Physical Space. In this part it is necessary to make a sketch of the community and locate the place of the project in it.
• How will we do it?
How will we go from where we are to where we want to be?
Here we must include the list of activities, step by step, to specify the project’s process and achieve the results we hope for.
• Who is going to do this?
Identifying those responsible for each distinct activity.
• When are we going to do it?
Identifying the timeframe that we plan to implement each of the activities in the Project.
• What do we need in order to do the Project?
List of resources and the amount necessary (material, human, financial)
• What do we have?
Existing resources in the community to implement the Project.
• How much will the Project cost?
Budget: where we put the cost of the resources, then the amount and time of use.
A ctivity: Creating the small scale project’s profile
What do we need?
- Matrix for the construction of the small scale project
- Pencils and pens
- Markers
Time: 2 hours
How do we do it?
1. Based on the risk selected or prioritized in the previous exercise for our small scale project to solve, we give a name
to the project that represents the selected solution and the location where it will be implemented.
2. We divide ourselves into groups with a maximum of 7 people in each group.
3. In each group we discuss:
a. What are the problems that we actually have in the community that make this small scale project necessary?
b. What results will we have when we finalize the small scale project?
c. With whom should we work to implement the small scale project?
d. Who will benefit when we finish our small scale project?
e. What things can go badly while implementing our small scale project, and what will we do about preventing them?
f. How can we implement our project so that the project’s results endure over time? How can we raise awareness
with others and fundraise?
4. Then we re-convene to compare each group’s opinion.
5. The results are written in the matrix for the development of the small scale project.
6. On the basis of the actions that we have determined, the budget and program of work are identified.
Matrix for the profile of the small scale project

Name of the Small scale Project: ____________________________________________________________
Community: _____________ Date: ___________ Place of implementation: ___________________________
What are the problems that we actually have in the Who should we work with to implement the small scale
community that make this small scale project necessary? project?
Who will benefit when we finish our small scale project?
What results will we have when we finalize the small scale What things can go badly while implementing our small
project? scale project, and what will we do about them?
How can we implement our project so that the project’s

results endure over time? How can we raise awareness with
others and fundraise?
Activities Responsibilities Duration Necessary Result

resources
What are we going to do? Who will be responsible How long will it What will we
for the accomplishment of take to accomplish What do we need obtain when
the activity? this activity? to implement the the activity is
activity? finalized?
Total amount: ___________________________

A ctivity
Development of the program of work

In order to organize the activities, enumerate the people in charge and calculate the time needed for implementation of the
project we can fill the following chart:
Activity Responsible Duration Result

Here we list each of the Here we identify the group Identify how long it will Indicate what changes will
activities necessary to reach of children and those take for us to execute each be realised at the end of
the result (step by step). from the community that activity. In addition, we can the activity and what can
will be responsible for put the dates if we know be used to verify that the
ensuring that the activity is when we want to do it. activity was accomplished.
implemented.
The sum of the duration of all the activities will give us the total implementation time for the project. Some activities may
be implemented at the same time, and this will shorten the total time of the project.
A ctivity
Development of the budget

In order to create a budget, we always question ourselves, “where do I begin?” because it seems like so much work. But
everything is a question of considering activity by activity what are the needed resources, either material or human …
Material resources
It is necessary to make a list of all the material resources. For this, we write in each column:
Activity Material Resources Quantity Unit Price Total Price

Here we list each of List of the resources How many of How much does each resource We multiply the
the activities that necessary for each each resource cost? If this resource can be quantity by the unit
we are going to activity are needed found in the community or can price.
implement in the be donated to us, then we do
project. not need to add a cost to it.
If we added all the totals of this last column, we will have the total amount we need to buy these materials.
Human Resources
We must also think about the people who are going to support us in each of the activities. In some cases, they will be
community members who support us without asking for payment, or part of the committee involved in implementing the
project. In some cases we will need someone who will help us implement one or another activity and we will need to pay him
or her for this or her days of work.
Activity Human Resources Quantity Unit Price Total Price

Here we list each of the List of human Quantity of days How much their daily Multiply the quantity
activities that we are resources that will be needed (we can base work costs. by the unit price.
going to implement in necessary for each of this on the duration of
the project. the activities. (Who the activity)
do we need support
from to implement this
activity?)
The total cost therefore will be the sum of the total prices of material resources and human resources.
This total cost is what we must obtain to be able to implement the project, so we can have the money to pay for the resources
or try to raise these funds from the members of the community, or external people or institutions.
Let’s talk about …

Implementation and Follow-up (Monitoring)
We need to carry out all the actions or activities that we established during the formulation of the project.
Each activity needs a space of time to be implemented as well as a specific budget. Therefore we can conclude that we
cannot spend time or funds on activities that were not considered within the project; doing so puts the project at risk
because we will not be able to solve the identified problem.
In order to avoid putting the project at risk and keeping us on track, ongoing monitoring and supervision is necessary to
guarantee the quality of the intervention or the activity. Supervision means the monitoring of the steps of the project as
they are completed to see if the resources were used appropriately, the risks that we have listed have changed, etc. Not
only must we monitor the undertaken activities, but we also must monitor the results we are obtaining.
There exist various actions that we can take to manage our small scale project:
1. Daily register.
In order to follow up on the activities we are doing, we can record them in a notebook or journal in which we describe
what we are doing on a day to day basis, who supported us, and what community resources we have used. This will help
us not to forget what we have done every day and at the end of the project we will be able to see all that we have done. In
addition, this diary register will help us record any changes that we have made to the small scale project.
2. Control of time and expenses.
It is necessary that we control the expenses that we have made to see if we are not overspending above the planned total.
We also need to keep track of the time it is taking to implement each act and delays to what we originally planned.
Also, to manage the project it is necessary that we organize ourselves, by means of a coordinating committee. We need
to indicate roles and responsibilities, e.g.; coordinator of expenses and fundraising, coordinator of time, coordinator of
necessary resources, coordinator of raising project awareness.
A ctivity
Control of income and expenses

What do we need?
- Notebook of control of income and expenses
- Pens and pencils
How do we do it?
1. Establish a person that will be in charge of controlling the income and expenses.
2. Document and analyze each time we have secured new money for the small scale project and also each time we
spend for example when we make a purchase, pay a person, and provide food or a travel allowance.
3. Share with the project coordination group to review that it does not have any errors and that all the income and
expenses are reflected.
4. Compare the expenses in relation to the amounts we have identified for the project to see if it is necessary to raise
new funds (in case we are overspending).
5. At the end of the small scale project, this control of income and expense can be used to share with the community
what resources were used and what income was available.
Income and expense control chart

Name of the project: ______________________________________
Person in charge: _________________________________________
Date on which For what activity Description How much did How much have How much do we
purchase was was this purchase of what we we spend? we spent to date have available to
made made? purchased. in total? date?
(We must detail
the amount of
the invoice)
Key ideas
- We must write down each new money secured or materials we receive on the date we obtain them.
- We must write each expense we make on the date the expense was made.
- We must be sure to write down all of our income and our expenses, without forgetting anything.
- Each expense must be accompanied by a receipt or invoice that verifies that we made that purchase.
- It’s important to share this information with the community so that they trust us and that we always have their
support for any type of project.
- Monitoring the budget against expenditure – we should identify needs for fundraising before we start implementing
the project, but also as they arise during the project’s implementation if we confront unexpected costs.
Let’s talk about:

Project evaluation and lessons learned
Whenever we implement a project, it is necessary at the end to evaluate:1) if we have achieved the results that we hoped for
at the beginning and 2) the solution to the problem that we had. Also we can see if we have achieved more than what we
planned, or that we have faced unplanned obstacles.
During the evaluation we must discuss if the resources were used in the best way, if we fulfilled our goal and in addition, if we
achieved results we did not plan for.
In addition, each activity and each project can be seen as an opportunity to learn and we should see each experience as a
new opportunity to learn new and interesting things and how to do things better next time.
When we finish the project we will learn that, there will be things that went well and things that went badly. What is important
is to learn from the things that happened well so that we can repeat them and to remember the things that did not go well so
that we don’t repeat them or do them that way again. Everything that we do gives us lessons to be learnt that we can apply
in our own lives.
It is also important that we share the results with our peers and the members of our community because it is very important
that everyone knows what we have achieved and how they have benefitted from our efforts.
The following is one activity that can be done to evaluate the small scale project (it has been used in Participatory Video
workshops with children:
Hopes and Fears Scoring

Many workshops start with children sharing hopes and fears of what they may learn. Here is an activity to evaluate how
well the project addressed the main issues
Materials: Large sheets of paper, pens, sticks and symbols
Time: 30 minutes
Steps:
1) Take the main hopes and fears from the first day of the workshop.
2) Take the negative statements, and turn it into positive statements (for example, if someone says “Afraid about not
learning participatory video”… change to “Learned participatory video”
3) The children mark how satisfied they are that the project addressed the hopes and fears.
A ctivity:

Brainstorm of ideas to evaluate the project
What do we need?
- Coloured cards
- Masking tape
- Markers
Time: 1 hour
How do we do it?
1. We divide into two groups, and in each group we have a discussion around the following points:
Group 1.
1. What are the main activities that were implemented in this small scale project?
2. Were they the same activities we had planned for? Were there changes?
3. Did the project resolve or contribute to the solution to the problem we identified?
4. Did the project manage to solve another problem that we didn’t plan for?
Group 2.
5. Did we manage to implement the activities in the planned time period and with the planned resources? Did we need
to use other resources? Or did we have funds leftovers in the project?
6. How well did we manage the implementation of the project?
7. How was the participation and support from the community during the project implementation? Who participated
more? Who did we not involve? Who could have been involved?
8. Did we have any difficulties in the implementation of the project? How did we solve them?
9. How did we feel working in a team?
10. Have we communicated with the community the results of the small scale project? What has been their reaction to
our project?
2. Write on coloured cards the main ideas.
3. When we have answered the questions we share them with the others and discuss the main ideas.
A ctivity:
Group discussion about lessons learned

What do we need?
- Coloured cards
- Masking tape
- Markers
Time: 1 hour.
How do we do it?
1. The lessons learned can be obtained easily by responding to three questions:
What was good about the experience?
The responses to this question will give us the positive experiences.
What was bad about the experience?
The responses to this question will give us the negative experiences.
If we could do this over again, what things would we do differently?
The results of this reflection must be shared with everyone in the community. A good idea to do so is to
organize a celebration to celebrate the solution of the problem!
Bibliography
1. FIDA. “Guía para el seguimiento y evaluación de proyectos”, 2002.
2. Bartle, Phil. “Introducción al diseño de proyectos comunitarios”, 2003.
3. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. “Guía para la formulación de proyectos”, 2006.
4. Domínguez, Sandra. “Identificación y formulación de proyectos”, 2003.
5. Federación Internacional de la Cruz Roja y la Media Luna Roja. “Caja de Herramientas AVC con hojas de referencia”,
2007.
Third Module – Annex 2: Plan Bangladesh – Planning, Resource Mobilization, and Implementation 114
Third Module – Annex 2: Plan Bangladesh

– Planning, Resource Mobilization, and
Implementation
Planning
At this stage children’s groups will decide what actions need to be taken in order to address the priority issues. The identified
priority issues may have their link to regional and national level. Therefore it is important to identify the actions which are
possible at the community level.
S tep 1: Root cause analysis and Risk Reduction options
As in the previous stage of HVCA assessment, issues have been prioritized and
clustered into sectors. In this step, each priority issue will be taken separately to
discuss the root cause of the problems. This can be done by using the problem tree
method. Root cause analysis will provide various micro and macro level issues.
Participants:
The following participants are to be requested to attend the community level
validation session. Minimum number of participants could be within 35-40 for
representative validation session.
• Representative from Country Office (CO) (10)
• Representative from Community Based Organization (CBO) (5)
• Representative from Youth (5)
• Representative from children and persons with disability (2)
Duration:
1.5 hour; Timing depends on the environment of the session (if participants take longer (which could be encouraged), it
should be finished in the presence of all concerned).
Facilitator:
2 children representatives (1 boy, 1 girl) from children's organisation. 2 CBO representative will be facilitated to act as co-
facilitators. Plan Staff (Area Coordinator) will maintain enabling environment for the session and provide inputs in critical
discussion if needed.
How to do it:
• Ask participants to draw a tree as shown above on flip chart.
• Ask participants to write the prioritized issues on small cards.
• Once participants write the prioritize issues on small cards, then request them to place on top of the tree.
• Facilitator then will take one issue at a time and discuss the root cause of the problem. The co-facilitator will write the
root causes on the VVIP card and place as shown in the diagram.
• Facilitator then will continue with other priority issues to find out the root causes.
• Facilitator then request participants to fill the risk reduction option matrix.
• Facilitator will then thank all the participants and conclude the session.

Adapted from Pages 46 -59 of Plan Bangladesh’s Child Centred Disaster Risk Reduction Guide.
Risk Reduction Option

Once the root cause analysis is accomplished, risk reduction options would be the next step to be followed. Before finalizing
the risk reduction option, it is important to see the options whether they are doable or not.
Sector Priority issue Root causes Risk reduction option Alternative option
S tep 2: Stakeholder mapping
Note to facilitator: this stakeholder mapping activity is the same activity as was outlined in the HVCA process. If this
was already done, skip to the next stakeholder analysis activity.
Objectives
To identify actors and institutions that will be involved in disaster risk reduction.
Materials
Small cards, flipcharts, and marker.
Participants:
Following participants are to be requested to attend the community level validation session. Minimum number of
participants could be within 35-40 for representative validation session.
• Representative from organization country office (10)
• Representative from CBO (5)
• Representative from children and person with disability (2)
Duration:
1.5 hour; Timing depends on the environment of the session (if participants take longer (which could be encouraged), it
Facilitator:
2 children representatives (1 boy, 1 girl) from children’s organisation. 2 CBO representative will be facilitated to act as co-
How to do it:
1. Participants are divided into groups. Each groups should be between 4-6 people and ideally be separated by gender.
2. Create a competition where each participant is asked to write down in the small card, one actor who is having
positive, neutral and negative influence in the community.
3. Create an XY (Cartesian) diagram where the axis represents the character of the actor/institution, either positive,
negative, or neutral, and the ordinate represent role of the actor in the institution, either high, medium, or low.
4. Ask the participants to place the actors/institutions that have been identified into the diagram.
5. Ask each group to also include boys and girls role in the community.
6. Compare the work of the male group and the female.
a. Is there a difference between the work of male group and the female and especially situation of persons with
disabilities?
b. Can there be a consensus between the male group and the female?
c. Where are boys and girls located in the diagram?
8. Make sure that someone records all comments of the participants.
S tep 3: Risk Reduction Plan
Implementation Strategy
Risk
Priority Root Alternative Target
Sector Reduction Objective Who will
Issues Cause options (#) How When Budget
Option organize

Participants:
The following participants are to be requested to attend the community level validation session. Minimum number of
• Representative from country office (10)
Duration:
• 45 minutes; Timing depends on the environment of the session (if participants take longer (which could be
encouraged), it should be finished in the presence of all concerned).
Facilitator:
• 2 children representatives (1 boy, 1 girl) from children’s organisation. 2 CBO representative will be facilitated to act
as co-facilitators. Plan Staff (Area Coordinator) will maintain enabling environment for the session and provide inputs
in critical discussion if needed.
How to do it:
• Facilitator should put the step 1 outcome on the wall or anywhere participants can see them easily.
• Facilitator then introduces the risk reduction plan format to the participants and request for their feedback on the
same.
• Once participants agree on the risk reduction plan format, the facilitator can discuss the objective of the identified
option, target groups and implementation strategy.
• The risk reduction plan will be shared by the facilitator with all the participants.
S tep 4: Stakeholder Analysis
Objectives:
To discern which stakeholders will cooperate with us, which might resist change or go against what we are doing, and what
we can do about each group.
Participants:
Following participants are to be requested to attend the community level validation session. Minimum number of
• Representative from children’s organisation (10)
Duration:
1 hour; Timing depends on the environment of the session (if participants take longer (which could be encouraged), it
Facilitator:
How to do it:
Break up into smaller groups, with each group representing one of the suggested risk reduction solutions from the previous
session. Each group discusses the following, considering the stakeholders mapped during the stakeholder mapping session.
• Do we have people who can help us implement the solution?
• Who will support our solution?
• What influence do they have?
• Who might be against our solution?
• What influence do they have?
• How can we gain their support?
• If we cannot gain their support, how can we neutralize their influence?
• How can we use the influence of our supporters to help us with our plan?
Facilitator should reconvene the groups and they should share their findings. It may be that regardless of the activity or
solution from the plan, the analysis shows the same supporters and detractors. Groups should share their ideas for the last
three questions, and then build this into the risk reduction implementation plan.
S tep 5: Validation with Community and Local Government
Once the risk reduction plan is accomplished, the next step is to validate with parents, teachers and all community
members. Further to this, validation should also take place at the local government level where government agencies and
other stakeholders can identify the opportunities to integrate the risk reduction plan into their plan.
Objective of the validation:

• To create common consensus between disaster management committees, community based organizations, children’s
organizations, disabled people’s organizations, and other stakeholders regarding the disaster situation of their community
• To acknowledge children’s potentiality by local govt. which will be reflected on children’s membership in disaster
management committees at the local level.
• To create enabling environment for children’s participation in DRR activities jointly with the disaster management
committee, CBO & CO
• To create space for youth representative through formation of children and youth organisations at local government
level selected by Disaster Management committees and all present
Participants:
• Members of disaster management committee including Commissioner/Chairman (will be facilitated to ensure as
much as possible members of the disaster management committee) (10)
• Representative from other stakeholders (5)
Duration:
2 hours; Timing depends on the environment of the session (if participants take longer (which could be encouraged), it
Facilitator:
How to do it:
• Compilation of all the steps from 1-2 in table or graphic form with the assistance of frontline and partner staff
• Discussion with community members on suitable date, time and place for the meeting. Same with the local
government unit.
• Invitation to all the validation participants
• Arrangement of necessary stationary and logistic items
• Welcome participants and thank for their presence.
• Discuss the objective of validation and deputise someone to take notes of the discussion.
• Presentation of priority issues, root causes, risk reduction option and plan.
• Discuss how the risk reduction plan options can be integrated into community development plans.
• Request participants to provide their comments and suggestion on the presentation

• Take a notes of all the suggestions and comments
• Conclude the validation and discuss the next step for implementation & M&E
R esource Mobilization
Resource mobilization is essential to realize the disaster risk reduction plan. Therefore, it is important to check the
stakeholders of the plan and what resources they have to contribute for this plan. Basically resource mobilization moves
around: Material as resources, human power and monetary support. With the combination of these, the risk reduction plan
will be implemented. As during the validation process, many stakeholders such as government agencies, NGOs, disabled
people’s organizations, children’s organisation, CBO and community itself will be participating to validate the plan. It would
be better to discuss the resource contribution from all the stakeholders and validate as well. At the same time it is important
first to analyze the resources existing the local government level, support from CSOs, private sector, religious groups, self-
fundraising initiatives -- with respect risk reduction option and then if there is any gap in terms of meeting the resources, this
can mobilized through various stakeholders. Below shown matrix is to identify, what resources are existing and required.
Resources Analysis Matrix
Resources Resources existing in Resources existing Resources needed Actions or interventions
required to the community and its in the community from external sources needed to make required
implement location (ownership) & and its location to implement the risk resources from external
risk reduction (accessible for use) (ownership) – not reduction measures and sources accessible. How
option accessible for use; activities long will it take to make
why not accessible? these available?
Participants:
Duration:
30 minutes; Timing depends on the environment of the session (if participants take longer (which could be encouraged), it
Facilitator:

For example, in El Salvador children engaged in small-scale DRR projects implemented fundraising activities such as selling local homemade snacks (pupusas) to raise
funds to complement their small grants.
How to do it:
• Stick the risk reduction plan where participants can easily see
• Facilitator should read the risk reduction plan
• Facilitator should ask participants:
• How to implement the risk reduction plan
• Where the resources will come from
• Can we make a checklist of what resources we require to implement the risk reduction option? Based on this the
available resource will be identified.
• The gap between what is available and required can also be identified
• Once the resource analysis matrix is completed, the facilitator should ask participants to discuss about meeting the
required resources from external sources.
• The facilitator will request participants to list out activities that will be taken to access resources from external
sources.
• The facilitator will then conclude and summarize the resource mobilization as next step of action.
I mplementation
The implementation of the risk reduction plan will be done through children’s organization and community based
organization. Other possible stakeholders will also join the implementation process. The implementation process will follow
the steps below:
• Setting objectives and indicators to measure the progress of the project
• Making lists of participants and agreeing on their roles and responsibilities
• Agreeing on local resource mobilization strategy
• Developing a detailed implementation plan for the project
• Finalizing the community management requirements and agreeing on training of management committee.
• Developing a forward and backward reporting system
• Conducting regular reflection and monitoring visits
• The plan should be monitored on monthly/quarterly basis.
Implementation Plan
Risk Reduction Roles and
Objective Activities Time line Update
options responsibilities
Transformation process: An integral part of implementation

During the project implementation of CCDRR in Barguna and Dhaka, Plan Bangladesh introduced transformation process to
implement the disaster risk reduction plan. The transformation process has been derived from DRR theory of change where
focus begins from individual to family, peer group and neighbourhood and then to community. The implementation ofa
disaster risk reduction plan is also about changing attitude and behaviour towards anticipating risk or potential threat.
M onitoring and Evaluation
There are several options for developing a monitoring and evaluation plan for this work. Annex 1 (the Seed Grant module
developed by Plan El Salvador) contains a guide for monitoring the small scale project and understanding lessons learned.
In addition, the planning, monitoring, and evaluation module of the DRR toolkit contains additional tools and resources that
would support the monitoring and evaluation of the proposed activities.
Fourth Module – Advocacy with Children

on Disaster Risk Reduction
Fourth Module – Advocacy with Children on Disaster Risk Reduction 124
About this Module

This module of the DRR toolkit contains an analysis of child-centred DRR advocacy work, some guidelines for conducting
advocacy work with children, and case studies of different advocacy activities with children that Plan International and its
partners have participated in. It also contains some tools for DRR advocacy work with children in the annexes.
This module is based on the principle that children have the right and capacity to participate in advocacy activities to
improve their own lives and the lives of their families and communities and to demand accountability from duty bearers in
regards to DRR service delivery. Several resources are cited throughout this document for further general information on
advocacy with children and its basis in the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Contents of this Module:

Introduction
DRR Advocacy and Triangle Analysis
Application of Child-centred DRR Advocacy
Guidelines and Resources on Advocacy with Children
Advocacy Goal 1: Children and their groups and communities influencing changes in policies and practices for more
disaster resilient communities at local and national levels.
Case Study #1: Participatory Video: Child-led Advocacy in the Philippines. Illustrating changes in DRM Policies’
Content and Culture in support of child centred DRR.
Case Study #2: Child-led Advocacy through Radio, Song and Theatre: Illustrating changes in culture in support of
child centred DRR.
Advocacy Goal 2: Changing policies and practices for children’s authentic and effective participation in disaster
management at local, national, regional and international levels.
Case Study #1: Children Monitoring Progress on the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action at the
Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction 2009: Illustrating changes in DRM Policies’ Application in support of
child centred DRR
Case Study #2: Child journalists at the 15th Session of the Conference of the Parties to UNFCCC (COP15)
Copenhagen, Denmark: Illustrating changes in disaster risk management and climate change policy in the area of
culture in support of child centred DRR
Introduction
The advocacy activities discussed in this module should be done in the context of a broader DRR program with children
that includes the implementation of participatory HVCAs with children (see the “Training Children on DRR with HVCA”
module in this toolkit for more information on this process). DRR advocacy with children should only be applied when
participating children have developed a strong understanding of the causes of disaster risks, vulnerabilities, and potential
DRR mitigation and prevention strategies.
The concept of advocacy used in this module is based on the notion of “people-centred advocacy.” John Samuel defines
people-centred advocacy as “a set of organised actions aimed at influencing public policies, societal attitudes, and socio-
political processes that enable and empower the marginalised to speak for themselves. Its purpose is social transformation
through the realisation of human rights: civil, political, economic, social, and cultural.” Nader Tadros further identifies the
following characteristics of people-centred advocacy: it is driven by people, it is value-based, it reshapes the balance of
power, it influences and involves decision-makers and power-holders, has to do with politics, and is inclusive.
For children in disaster risk situations, this means that advocacy should be driven by children (or their communities in

Samuel, J. (2002) What is people-centred advocacy? PLA Notes, 43: 9-12

Tadros, N. (2010). Advocacy: People’s Power and Participation: A sourcebook for advocacy and social justice workers. Washington, DC; People’s Advocacy.
authentic consultation with children), should be based on the principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, should
shift the balance of power in communities to include children as major stakeholders, should influence and involve decision-
makers within children’s spheres of influence (including their families and peers), should hold child protection paramount,
and should be inclusive of all children, especially the most marginalized and vulnerable to disaster risks.
In previous modules of this toolkit, children’s marginalization from decision making processes concerning disaster
management and climate change, and their right to participate in those decisions, have been discussed. DRR advocacy with
children should enable children voice their concerns and ideas for building community resilience, including voicing their
demands for action by duty bearers for securing a safer, disaster resilient environment for all children. In many disaster and
post-disaster situations, children are often the least powerful and most vulnerable; DRR advocacy with children should change
that balance of power, both for their own well-being and for the increased resilience of their communities to disasters.
Our experience has shown that advocacy activities are often a natural outcome after conducting a participatory HVCA
with children. In addition to bringing children and their communities closer to addressing disaster resilience through local
engagement and action, people-centred advocacy activities aim to lead to citizenship changes (whereby children and young
citizens become aware of their power and rights, and use this power to effectively participate in decision making processes
that reduce risks), and ultimately lead to institutional changes (whereby decision-making processes change towards
more involvement of children and young citizens, more transparency, and more accountability of disaster management
mechanisms/frameworks) and/or policy changes (whereby laws, policies, decrees, etc. are changed to integrate risk
reduction at local, national, and/or international levels).
The experiences of Plan International and its partners doing advocacy with children in DRR fall under two main advocacy goals:
1. Children’s groups and their co mmunities are influencing changes in policies and practices for more disaster resilient
communities at local and national levels.
2. Changing policies and practices for children’s authentic and effective participation in disaster management at local,
national, regional and international levels.
For each of these goals, depending on the context and the actors, an advocacy campaign can be built focusing on one
or more of the following areas: changing the content of laws, regulations and policies to ensure these address children’s
rights within DRM; changing the application of policy or law application or implementation to ensure these support the
implementation of child centred disaster risk management; and changing culture through changing behaviours among
and relationships with duty bearers and citizens in support of the realization of child rights and community resilience.
These three advocacy areas – content, application, culture – form part of a type of advocacy analysis known as “triangle
analysis”. When a group decides to embark on an advocacy campaign, triangle analysis is an important and useful
strategic analysis tool. It is not necessarily a child-friendly tool; rather, it is used in this module in a descriptive way, to help
demonstrate the directions a DRR advocacy campaign with children can take.
The following diagram portrays the triangle analysis and what each advocacy area refers to:
Triangle Analysis Diagram

Triangle Analysis in the context of advocacy was developed by Margaret Schuler and expanded upon in Tadros, N. (2010). Advocacy: People’s Power and Participation: A
sourcebook for advocacy and social justice workers. Washington, DC; People’s Advocacy.

Diagram is adapted from A New Weave of Power, People, and Politics: The Action Guide for Advocacy and Citizen Participation by Lisa VeneKlasen with Valerie Miller
(2002). World Neighbors, Oklahoma, USA. and can be found at
http://tools.iscvt.org/_media/advocacy/wiki/triangular_analysis.pdf?id=advocacy%3Acraft_campaign%3Awhatquestions&cache=cache
Many advocacy campaigns and programs often focus on content, considering advocacy to be solely about policy change.
However, laws and policies that are changed do not necessarily lead to changes on the ground that affect those in highest
need of them. When appropriate laws or policies are in place, focusing advocacy work on application can be most
effective. For example, there may be a law in place to integrate DRR into education systems, but the Ministry of Education
has not yet conducted the appropriate teacher training and curriculum development needed to “apply” the law. Culture
is the most often overlooked area of focus in advocacy, but it is a key dimension of effective advocacy work. There might
be laws in place and institutions able and funded to implement them, but these may have no effect on people because
they don’t reach the actual decision-makers, who could be religious leaders, parents, etc. Continuing the example above,
a law to integrate DRR into education systems may have been implemented by the MOE through conducting teacher
training and curriculum development. However, this curriculum does not change the risk reduction behaviours of many
vulnerable families and children because the most vulnerable families have children who are not enrolled in school. The
implementation of this curriculum may also not change behaviours because the most influential community leaders may
not be the teachers, but perhaps the religious leaders. In addition, focusing on the area of culture can create the political
will necessary to affect changes in the areas of content and application, either through increasing public support for
government initiatives, or through grassroots efforts of a public demanding their rights and the policy or institutional
changes necessary to claim those rights. For example, ensuring extensive media coverage of an initiative in one community
demanding and succeeding in getting their local government to build safer schools for their children may inspire members
of another community to demand the same of their local governments.
DRR Advocacy and Triangle Analysis:

As mentioned above, the experiences of Plan International and its partners doing advocacy with children in DRR fall under
two main advocacy goals:
1. Children’s groups and their communities influencing changes in policies and practices for more disaster resilient
communities at local and national levels.
2. Changing policies and practices for children’s authentic and effective participation in disaster management at local,
national, regional and international levels.
Applying triangle analysis to the first child centred DRR advocacy goal—“children and their groups and communities changing
policies and practices for more disaster resilient communities at local and national levels”-- would lead to the following:
Content: Where no child centred DRR policies/laws/regulations exist, or where existing ones are defective, insufficient,
or have extreme loopholes, advocacy strategies in this area would call for appropriate child centred policies, laws,
and regulations that reduce disaster risks. These can include mandated school policies for conducting regular disaster
preparedness activities with students, building codes that keep schools and homes safe and stable during hazards like
floods and earthquakes, and stipulation of children’s participation in school-based and community/municipal disaster
risk management governance structures.
Application: Where implementation of centred DRR policies/laws/regulations is weak or non-existent, advocacy
strategies in this area would call for the effective implementation of current risk reduction laws, policies and
regulations. This can include advocating for increased budgets to fund the implementation of laws on reducing risks
through child led advocacy campaigns.
Culture: Where disaster risk reduction activities often require the engagement of citizens, families, community
members, and children, advocacy strategies in this area would call for raising awareness, training, and peer education
on children’s rights to safety and protection from disaster, and on reducing risks.
In this module of the toolkit, we share several cases of advocacy activities led by, initiated, or in partnership with children
addressing the “content” and “culture” areas of the first goal, children’s groups and their communities influencing changes
in policies and practices for more disaster resilient communities at local and national levels. The first case shares the use
of participatory video as a tool for raising community awareness about the risks of increased flooding due to mining near
the river in a community in the Philippines (culture), as well as influencing decision-makers to create local policies to
stop mining near the river (content). The second case describes several child-led activities using radio, song, and theatre
that have communicated important information to communities about how to reduce risks and be prepared for hazards
(culture).
Applying triangle analysis to the second child centred DRR advocacy goal —“changing policies and practices for children’s
authentic and effective participation in disaster management at local, national, regional and international levels” –would
lead to the following:
Content: Where no child centre DRR policies/laws/regulations exist, or where existing ones are defective and have
extreme loopholes, advocacy strategies in this area would call for appropriate child centred policies, laws, and
regulations (at the international, regional, national, and local levels) for disaster management governance that
includes the participation of children and their communities in DRR decision making.
Application: Where implementation of child centre DRR policies/laws/regulations is weak or non-existent, advocacy
strategies in this area would call for appropriate and equitable implementation of current policies regarding DRR and
children, including children’s access, presence and influence in currently available spaces for disaster management
governance (at the international, regional, national, and local levels).
Culture: Where the voices and opinions of children are dismissed due to cultural and social norms, advocacy strategies
in this area would work call for building or strengthening public understanding of the positive and essential role
children can play in DRR and climate change adaptation.
In this module of the toolkit, we share two examples of advocacy activities where children have engaged at the
international level in support of change in the “application” and “culture” area of the second child centred DRR goal. The
first example, focuses on application of child centred DRR policies/laws/regulations, and occurred in 2009 as part of Plan’s
activities leading up to the UNISDR Global Platform for Disaster Reduction in Geneva. The objective was to secure the
inclusion of children’s voices in the monitoring and evaluation of country progress on their implementation of the Hyogo
Framework for Action on Disaster Reduction. The second case example, focuses on changes of culture in support of child
centred DRR policies/laws/regulations, and took place in 2009 at the UN Climate Change conference in Copenhagen. The
objective in this case was to ensure the dissemination and amplification of children’s voices on the global issue of climate
change and on their views on the progress of the UNFCCC COP meetings in Copenhagen at both the conference and
through public media.
The advocacy activities with children described in these cases take on a number of forms. In some cases, advocacy involves
the direct action of children vis-à-vis decision-makers and duty bearers, particularly at local levels; in other cases, it involves
the participation of children at various levels of an advocacy campaign to ensure their voices are integrated, usually at
national and international levels. “Decision-makers” and “duty-bearers” in the case of children often include family, peers,
and school, and thus advocacy with children can include any activities children do to influence and change the decisions
and behaviours of these stakeholders (the “culture” area, as described above), in addition to the traditional understanding
of advocacy occurring at the official government level. In reality, the direct stakeholders (family, peers, school) may have
more decision-making power or influence over children than official government stakeholders. As such, it is important that
advocacy efforts focus on both stakeholder groups.
There are a number of advocacy strategy tools that are child friendly, or that can be modified to be conducted with
children. Fourth Module - Annex 1 contains a child-friendly DRR training guide developed by Plan Cambodia that uses the
Venn Diagram to help children identify stakeholders, and uses an example of how children influence their parents to make
decisions to help children come up with their own advocacy strategy with other decision-makers. Other tools include the
“problem tree.”
All of the cases described below are part of a broader DRR initiative that includes other important activities with children
and communities to reduce their vulnerability to disaster risks. Many of the tools and cases described below are most
effective when they are preceded by other child centred DRR program work, including education and training.

“A broader definition of advocacy, which includes the direct sphere of influence of children – family, friends and school – rather than the national political level, is
therefore more useful when working with young citizens.” (Plan Togo (2006). “Child Advocates: Supporting Children to Stand Up for Their Rights!”, p. 5.
Guidelines and Resources on Advocacy with Children

It is extremely important to consider child protection when conducting advocacy with children, whether it is child-led advocacy
or children are consulted in a larger, adult-led advocacy initiative. As with other activities conducted with children – such as
training, research, and monitoring and evaluation –adults that facilitate advocacy with children should be trained, trusted, and
care should be taken to prevent both unintentional and intentional harm and abuse to children by adults, as well as harm and
abuse that children can inflict on each other. Organizations should consult with and adhere to their child protection policies.
An example of Plan’s child protection policy can be found in the First Module - Annex 8 of this toolkit. In addition, Plan has the
following important implementation standards for child participation that are relevant to advocacy with children:
S tandard 8 – Safe Child Participation
Plan ensures that we are keeping children safe when organising and inviting children to participate in projects,
events, activities, research and online social networking. We also protect children visiting Plan offices.
Compliance Indicators
Minimum requirements
8.1 All project plans are accompanied by a risk management plan which includes a specific focus on risks to children
from their participation in the normal project activities.
8.2 Special events, research projects or other activities involving children, where risks to their safety might be
increased (e.g. travelling away from home), are planned with a documented risk assessment which adheres to
relevant Plan guidelines and, where appropriate, local laws regarding participation and focuses on CP and health
and safety risks.
8.3 Risk management plans for the above include contact details and positions of CP Coordinators managing
the event and all adults involved in the event. Particular attention is given to the number and gender of staff,
supervision of the children and the safety of the activities being organised. All children travelling are covered by
country insurance policies and separate overnight accommodation is provided for boys and girls. Risk management
plans are approved by the office director (country, national).
8.4 Staff accompanying children are responsible for ensuring the safety and wellbeing of children involved in the
event/activity (refer to Role and Responsibilities of Accompanying for Chaperones). These staff receives pre-event
briefing and guidance on child protection concerns pertinent to the particular event being organised.
8.5 Written consent is sought from parents/guardians where children are being asked to perform a particular role in
a special event and particularly when that event takes place away from home.
8.6 Children participating in projects/events/activities are briefed on keeping themselves safe during specific
activities and informed of whom to go to if a concern arises.
8.7 A summarised version of Plan’s CPP, COC (section; ‘Personal Conduct, Concern for Children, their Families and
Communities’) and the complaints procedures is publicised at specific events/activities.
8.8 Children visiting Plan offices are accompanied by an adult or have a letter authorising the visit and are
adequately supervised at all times during their visit. All children entering the building are registered on a separate
log with first point of contact (e.g. reception). If necessary, appropriate staff (e.g. in People & Culture, Office
Services and Risk) are alerted.
8.9 Any additional, or increased, CP risks are addressed for children with particular needs (e.g. those with a
disability), or children in particularly vulnerable situations who are participating in projects/events/activities.
Best practice to implement the standard fully
8.10 Managers approve requests to bring children to the offices during out of office hours (e.g. weekend) and
appropriate staff are alerted (e.g. People & Culture, Office Services). Appropriate arrangements (including analysis of
any risks, consideration of liability) are considered before approval is given.
8.11 Offices comply with health and safety rules.

As is appropriate to the age of the child visiting: e.g. very young children should be accompanied by an adult whereas for older children (say of secondary school age) a
letter authorising the visit may be sufficient

Consider options for ensuring children in the office feel at ease and are kept safe – e.g. by having a ‘children’s corner’ / child friendly space.

Plan’s Child Protection Policy Implementation Standards Practice Guidance and Standards for Keeping Children Safe in Plan. Version: Final; Last revision: May 2010
Advocacy activities should seek to empower children to speak for themselves; yet it should never put them or their families
at risk of harm. Adults may choose to undertake advocacy at their own risk, but children must never be asked to do so. The
following is a list of other important child protection considerations in advocacy:
E nsuring the Best Interest of the Child in Advocacy Work with Children:
Advocating with children can create a variety of child protection risks to be prevented by a facilitator or group
member. It can:
• lead children away from (hopefully) safe family boundaries through attending residential events and meetings
• create friction at family/school level that increases children’s vulnerability to violence
• expose children to various forms of bullying and aggressions from those opposing their advocacy efforts
• expose them to psychosocial abuse
• reveal personal information and data on children, making them vulnerable to abuse, or expose them in a way
disrespecting their dignity
• In the worst case, even put children’s lives at risk
Especially when challenging social beliefs or demanding group rights, advocacy efforts can create a backlash and be
dangerous for children (even more so if they come from minority or otherwise socially excluded groups, such as street
children). It is advisable to engage children in less controversial topics at the beginning, helping children to gain experience
and confidence to tackle more difficult themes as they go along.
It is essential that adults (e.g.: staff members such as DRR and/or child protection advisors) support children in carrying out
a detailed risk analysis. Children might not be in a position to understand all the potential consequences of their advocacy
efforts (and neither might be adults). Special attention has to be given when working with teenagers: though their
capacities to analyse issues and consequences are better developed than those of younger children, they might tend to take
more daring and riskier approaches to advocacy work.
The Convention of the Rights of the Child should serve as the basis for all child protection efforts when working with
children as advocates. It is good to bear in mind, however, that the best way to protect children is to empower them to
protect themselves. Advocacy initiatives with children can make an important contribution to their self-protection.
As with research, planning, monitoring and evaluation activities with children, any adult-led advocacy activities that consult
with children, or claim to speak on behalf of children, should not be extractive exercises. Children should be aware of the
purpose of the consultation and where their opinions will be used; theirs and their parents’ consent10 should be taken, and
they should be informed of the outcomes of their participation, however far removed these may be from their everyday lives.
When conducting advocacy with children who have been directly or indirectly affected by disasters, it is important that
the adults working with them provide psychosocial support to them. Exploring risks and root causes can be psychologically
traumatic to children if it is not coupled with the support they need to work through their feelings and emotions in the
aftermath of a disaster. When children’s post-disaster trauma is acknowledged and dealt with, DRR work with children,
including advocacy work, may help them work through it in positive way. Their trauma should not be ignored while forging
ahead into solutions to their problems; rather, the process of DRR advocacy work could help the children to see a brighter
future for themselves and work through their emotions about their previous negative experiences.

This information is taken from Plan Togo’s publication, “Child Advocates: Supporting Children to Stand Up for Their Rights!” on page 13.
10
For a sample parental consent form, see page 60 of the following publication: Inter-agency Working Group on Children’s Participation (2007). “Operations Manual on
Children’s Participation in Consultations.” http://plan-international.org/about-plan/resources/publications/participation/cover-of-operations-manual-operations-manual-
on-childrens-participation-in-consultations
Please see the guidelines on conducting an HVCA with children for additional information. Also, the following resources
contain useful guidelines, tools, and examples for advocacy and consultations with children:
• Plan Togo (2006). “Child Advocates: Supporting Children to Stand Up for Their Rights!”
http://plan-international.org/plan-spain/files/Africa/WARO/publications/child_advocates.pdf
• Bonati, G. (2006). “Consulting with Children.” Plan Togo.
http://plan-international.org/files/Africa/WARO/publications/consulting-with-children
• Plan West Africa Regional Office. “Capacity Development for Youth Groups Training Guide: Advocacy.”
http://plan-international.org/files/Africa/WARO/publications/Youth%20advocacy%20_8.pdf
• Inter-agency Working Group on Children’s Participation (2007). “Operations Manual on Children’s Participation in
Consultations.” http://plan-international.org/about-plan/resources/publications/participation/cover-of-operations-
manual-operations-manual-on-childrens-participation-in-consultations
• Inter-agency Working Group on Children’s Participation (2007). “Minimum Standards for Consulting with Children.”
http://plan-international.org/about-plan/resources/publications/participation/minimum-standards-for-consulting-
with-children
• UNICEF (2006). “Children and Youth Participation Resource Guide.”
http://www.unicef.org/adolescence/cypguide/files/Child_and_Youth_Participation_Guide(1).pdf
Advocacy Goal 1: Children and their groups and communities influencing changes in
policies and practices for more disaster resilient communities at local and national levels.
C ase Study #1: Participatory Video: Child-led Advocacy in the Philippines

Illustrating changes in DRM Policies’ Content and Culture in support of child-centred DRR
Participatory Video (PV) is a particularly effective advocacy tool. PV as an activity itself involves the participants deciding
upon the content and creating their own video media to communicate their message.11 It can be particularly effective
when used to raise awareness of disaster risks, especially in low literacy populations. It is also very powerful when used with
government decision makers as it reflects visually and emotionally what may be difficult to describe with just words. For
children, this last point is important: while children may feel intimidated to speak in front of adult decision-makers, a video
they have made using the PV process can be just as affective, if not more so, than presence in one-off meetings in non-child
friendly environments.
For a complete description of the methodology used for PV with children in DRR and climate change, “Amplifying children’s
voices on climate change: the role of participatory video” by Tamara Plush can be consulted.12 What is most important
to note is that the participatory HVCA approach and participatory video research methodology “support the notion that
individual and political empowerment starts when people undertake a process of understanding and reflecting on their own
situations” (p. 121).
Plan Philippines, as part of its Child Centred DRR work made use of this PV methodology and working where children
in the community of Caga-ut in Eastern Samar, following their HVCA process, developed an advocacy plan to reduce
environmental, economic, and social risks. They successfully advocated to local authorities to stop chromate mining at the
river in their community. The videos that the children made as part of their advocacy initiative (“Salcedo, Pock-Marked
Face of Caga-ut”) can be found on YouTube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1upkBQ0tOeM&feature=channel.
The PV process itself worked on the advocacy area of culture (seeking changes in values, attitudes and behaviour), as the
process included interviews and dialogues with families, resident miners, and community members about the increase in
vulnerability to disaster risks the tree cutting and mining activities posed to present and future generations. The children in
developing their PV also directly targeted miners, operators, those licensing the mining, and other stakeholders engaged
in the mining business. The children were successful in securing a governance order (changes in the advocacy area of
content) for mining companies not to excavate near the river and to cover mining pits and reforest mining areas once these
have been exploited in their barangay.
The DRR PV project with children in Eastern Samar also produced two more videos available on YouTube: “Barabo,
the Sinking Barangay” at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdvuX9WvaYQ&feature=channel and “Flood-Menace to
Education” at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHlRi6-nVKs&feature=channel. Plan Philippines supported the children
to conduct video screenings followed by debates between children and adults in the municipalities of Salcedo, Llorente
and Oras and at the provincial capital. A total of 181 persons including provincial board members, municipal legislators,
heads of government agencies and children leaders watched the videos. These screenings built awareness of disaster risks
in other locations and allowed for cross-fertilization of ideas among different children for how to pressure decision-makers
to ensure the safety and well being of their citizens by taking action to reduce the root causes of vulnerabilities to disaster
risks. This is an example of change in the advocacy area of culture, and an increase in the level of DRR awareness and rights
awareness.
The screenings also prompted actions in communities outside of Cagaut. In Barobo, the residents planted trees in various
areas as a response to the children’s call for action to address floods and landslide risks. And in Cadian, the village council
initiated a tree planting campaign and assisted in the installation of cabinets at an elevated part of school classrooms so that
children’s school materials are safeguarded when floods occur. These commitments, realized in such a short time frame,
however, will require regular follow-up to ensure the actions are sustained.
11
Several resources exist on PV and its numerous uses for empowering communities; in 2007 the Institute for Development Studies compiled a list of resources
on PV that can be found here: http://www.drc-citizenship.org/publications/Resources%20on%20PV.pdf
12
Plush, T. (2009). “Amplifying children’s voices on climate change: the role of participatory video.” Participatory Learning and Action 60: Community Based
Adaptation to Climate Change. London: International Institute for Environment and Development. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iiedpla/pla/2009/00000060
/00000001/art00011
One of the limitations of PV work is the relatively high costs for implementation. The above activities were undertaken
with an external grant of approximately $14,000; however, the work also built the capacity of children’s groups, Plan local
staff, and media partners in PV, which helped Plan Philippines to support a children’s group in creating another health/
epidemic prevention video with its own funding sources. The expense and novelty of the technology used for PV in some
communities may reinforce or heighten other challenges, such as power relations in communities because of who has
access to the training and equipment, which runs counter to the advocacy purpose of changing power relations. Among
the power relations to be considered in PV work are gender relations; gender equity must be considered when determining
who gets trained and has access to the technology. PV messages and images should also work to challenge gender norms,
rather than reinforce them. These challenges thus need to be foreseen before using PV for advocacy on DRR and climate
change with children.
It is recommended that PV work be conducted with local media partners, who are aware of cultural issues , appropriate
technology and can be supported by organizational staff with expertise on DRR and child rights, in particular child
participation and protection issues. In addition, it is recommended that organizations work with existing child media clubs
to ensure the sustainability of the technical media skills learnt as well as the utility of the video equipment purchased.
As with all types of advocacy work and child media work, it is important to ensure the best interests of the child. Children
who appear on photographs and videos should have parental consent to appear, and they and their families should be
aware of how the video and their images will be disseminated. Measures to safeguard confidentiality should be taken if the
video is covering potentially politically or culturally sensitive issues, such as using voice without images, or clouding faces
or other means of identifying individuals. Other implications of children appearing on video should be explored through a
careful risk analysis that includes adults.
T he children in Eastern Samar, the Philippines faced negative reaction from those with a vested interest
in the continuation of mining operations, particularly from those for whom income generation and profit
were at stake. Despite support from Plan, the local council and their school, children’s advocacy efforts
for improved mining practices in the area were discontinued as it triggered a large dispute which could
eventually jeopardise the children’s wellbeing and that of their families.
Despite these considerations and limitations, the case described above shows how effective PV can be for advocacy with
children on DRR and climate change when conducted in the context of a larger DRR program with children, when funding
is available, and when the appropriate audiences are targeted for viewing the videos. Fourth Module - Annex 2 contains a
child-friendly PowerPoint presentation on how to use PV for advocacy.
Other examples of PV being used successfully in advocacy includes this one in Indonesia: following community screening
sessions of the participatory videos developed by children in Sikka, Indonesia, the Wolo village board has allocated an
increased budget to support the work of the children’s groups (Forades) and for DRR interventions -- in particular tree
planting, forest protection (from fires) and water sources conservation. The Wolo village board has updated its village
map indentifying the hazards, risks and safe areas which the children had highlighted. Its DRR map now includes the
identification of households with pregnant women to be prioritized in evacuation plans.
C ase Study #2: Child-led Advocacy through Radio, Song and Theatre
Illustrating changes in culture in support of child centred DRR

Plan International’s experience with child-centred DRR programming has demonstrated that children can be effective
communicators of risk.13 Our work shows that children can design and deliver messages for communicating risk to their
peers and their families which can be more effective than many top-town risk communication strategies. The three
communication strategies initiated or led by children described below demonstrate effective methods for children to
advocate for behaviour change in their communities in support of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation.
These demonstrate advocacy in the area of culture.
Radio: MODCAR in Sierra Leone

Working with local communities in the Moyamba District of Sierra Leone, in 2006, Plan International established MODCAR
(the Moyamba District’s Children’s Awareness Radio), a child-led, community-based radio station that reaches an audience
of 14 chiefdoms in Moyamba and the surrounding area, approximately 250,000 people in a radius of 80 miles. While this
radio station was initiated by Plan to help foster peace and reconciliation in the region, the radio station is led and governed
by children, and at least 60% of its content is created by children.14
With the efforts of Plan Sierra Leone’s child-centred DRR program, MODCAR now produces a weekly one-hour radio
program on DRR. This program has not only succeeded in raising DRR awareness in Moyamaba, but has also successfully
exerted pressure on local authorities to reduce risks identified by children.
For example, following their community’s HVCA, the children in Moyamba identified a bridge which connects across the
Yambutu River as a hazard to children who walk across it to go to school, due to a gap in the bridge as a result of the
collapse of one of the metal plates. Children raised awareness of this risk in a radio discussion, and called for action by
local authorities. The local authorities heeded their call to action and agreed to mend the bridge adhering to measures for
greater health and safety.
Through their messaging on MODCAR, the children have also encouraged villages to create fire belts and to reduce
indiscriminate tire burning. The children are now working on a collaboration with Sierra Leone’s National Disaster
Management Office to be able to broadcast a bi-weekly DRR radio discussion program on Radio UNIOSIL, FM 103, which is
a national radio broadcast.
Similar to participatory video, using radio for advocacy has its limitations. Radio requires training and access to expensive
equipment. It also requires access to local airtime (although radio can also be broadcast on the internet). In many parts of
the world, however, radio reaches more people than any other type of media; and like PV, it is effective in reaching illiterate
populations with DRR messaging. When training and resources are available to children, radio can serve as a very effective
medium for raising awareness about DRR and climate change, and putting pressure on decision-makers to take action to
safeguard the safety and wellbeing of all children and their communities.
Song: “Qasidah’s” in Indonesia

A “Qasidah” is a form of poetry from pre-Islamic Arabia, which runs 50 lines to more than 100 lines of rhyme. It has a single
main subject that is logically developed and concluded. It is often used for religious poetry, accompanied by chanting and
percussion. Qasidah music is part of the culture in the Rembang district of Indonesia.
As part of Plan’s DRR work in Indonesia, following HVCA activities, Children’s groups in Rembang adopted Qasidahs to
campaign and promote DRR and climate change adaptation messages to their community. They created lyrics containing
DRR and climate change adaptation messages, integrated them with Qasidah music, and led performances at village
gatherings.
This indigenous communication method has proven to be very effective for delivering DRR messages, as the community is
familiar with Qasidah music and thus remember the catchy lyrics, which promote action to better prepare their homes and
livelihoods for future disaster risks.
13
Mitchell, Tom, Katharine Haynes, Wei Choong, Nick Hall and Katie Oven (2008). “The Role of Children and Youth in Communicating Disaster Risk.” Children,
Youth and Environments 18 (1): 254-279. http://www.plan-uk.org/pdfs/communicatingrisk
14
More detailed information about MODCAR can be found at: http://www.comminit.com/en/node/132825/2781 and http://www.bbc.co.uk/humber/content/
image_galleries/sl_modcar_gallery.shtml?1
The following is a translation of one of these Qasidahs:
An Ambience in Dowan Village

(A song using ”suasana di Kota Santri” Lyric by Gigi)
An Ambience in Dowan village
It was previously passionate and comforts the heart
An ambience in Dowan village
It was formerly bracing the heart
Every morning and at the evening
Young people wearing neat clothes
Holding a holy book
Heading for prayer and study it holy book
An ambience in Dowan village
It is tasteless the heart recently
It’s now become warm and sultry the heart
Refrain:
Mountains and forest are being damaged
By irresponsible people such as rock miners
Floods and landslide are threaten our village’s lives
Even drought become potential hazard for the village
Let’s be awake all young people
Let’s be as an agent of change
We preserve our environment
Thus we able to avoid and reduce the future risks
Come on, young people!
Let’s start to plant trees
All to the good and bringing benefit to this village,
And to the rest of the world
For happiness, everlasting!!
Theatre: Street Theatre in the Philippines

In Guinsaugon, St Bernard, Plan Philippines supported theatre training for children’s groups, many of whom were survivors
of the fatal landslide of 2006 in which the whole village was destroyed, with over 1,000 fatalities. The purpose of the
theatre performance was twofold: first, to assist in the children’s recovery from the disaster through their sharing of stories
and experiences and delivery of psychosocial support; and second to communicate children’s views and messages on
disaster risk reduction and their right to safety and protection from disaster risks. The street theatre productions drew
crowds of 2,000 participants, many of them children. After the performances, discussions were facilitated to hear the
audience reactions and opinions on the topics presented and generated discussion in support of DRR behaviour change. 15
These productions gained much media coverage, and the Guinsaugon theatre group has been invited to perform to
international decision making audiences such as the International Conference on Landslides in Tacloban in the Philippines.
They have also performed in Guinsaugon front of the International Association of Geolologists, and were invited by
them to perform during the global landslide forum in Kobe, Japan. During the conference in Guinsaugon, a Japanese
scientist reacted in tears with the following comment: “In my many years of doing disaster risk management and support
community to be resilient against geological hazards, it is my first time to feel and realize to whom are these efforts are
for... for the children and I would like to inform all of us here that I want children to speak in the global
landslide forum in Japan for our colleagues to understand the plights of the children.” This quote demonstrates how
children using theatre can make very tangible a topic that can otherwise seem very technical and unapproachable.
The work of the theatre group in Guinsaugon has been featured in the video-documentary ‘Children on the Frontline,’
which can be viewed on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPcUnHEQxak (starting at minute 18:09).
15
Mitchell, T., Tanner, T., Haynes, K. (2009). Children as agents of change for Disaster Risk Reduction: Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines. Working Paper
No. 1. London: Children in a Changing Climate. http://www.childreninachangingclimate.org/database/ccc/Publications/MitchellTannerHaynes_AgentsForChange-
WorkingPaper1_2009.pdf
Resources on Participatory Theatre with Children16
The following additional resources about participatory theater may be useful to consult:
“ Ben ni walen (Let’s agree and take action): Mobilising for Human Rights Using Participatory Theatre”
by Cristina Sganga and Teun Visser, Amnesty International (2006). http://www.comminit.com/en/node/313804/304
“ Use of Soaps Containing Mercury in Africa - How to Fight It,” by Peter W. U. Appel (2008).
http://www.comminit.com/en/node/282237/304
“Using Theatre for Human Rights Education and Action”, New Tactics for Human Rights Project (2006).
“ Performance Activism and Civic Engagement Through Symbolic and Playful Actions” by Arvind Singhal and Karen
Greiner (2008). http://www.comminit.com/en/node/298236/348
“Empower Youth and Communities to Respond to HIV/AIDS – Tanzania” (2009). Youth Self-Employment Foundation
(YOSEFO), Zanzibar Theatre Group, TVZ, and Radio Zanzibar. http://www.comminit.com/en/node/314720/304
Theatre for Life: Health Information, Community Mobilisation and Child Rights - A Qualitative Evaluation
Theatre and Democracy: http://www.comminit.com/en/node/284999/348
Action Theatre: http://www.comminit.com/en/node/270798/36
Action Theatre: Initiating Changes: http://www.comminit.com/en/node/283448/36
Theatre for Development (TfD): http://www.comminit.com/en/node/201126/347
The Soul Beat 158 - Theatre for Social Change: http://www.comminit.com/en/africa/soul-beat-158.html
16
Links and descriptions from The Drum Beat, an email resource provided by the Communication Initiative Network, http://www.comminit.com/.
Advocacy Goal 2: Changing policies and practices for children’s authentic and effective
participation in disaster management at local, national, regional and international levels.
C ase Study #1: Children Monitoring Progress on the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action
at the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction 2009
Illustrating changes in DRM Policies’ Application in support of child centred DRR
This case describes the actions Plan International and its partners took to advocate for the inclusion of children’s voices
in national level disaster risk reduction by working to affect change in the monitoring and assessment of progress on the
implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action. It describes some successes in raising awareness at the UN level for
children’s important roles, as well as success in raising that awareness with other civil society organizations. This work
succeeded in including children’s participation as one of the indicators of the global civil society shadow report for the 2011
Global Platform on Disaster Reduction.
Every two years since the creation of the Hyogo Framework for Action in 200517 (HFA), the Global Platform for Disaster Risk
Reduction has been held by the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction to monitor country progress on disaster risk
reduction. As the HFA is a non-binding agreement among 168 countries, UNISDR guidelines to countries for reporting their
progress on HFA are very general, and the self-assessment nature of the progress report allow for countries to report on any
level of DRR intervention without specific targets to measure against. Furthermore, official country reports have no indicators
to report any progress on creating spaces or policies for children to participate in DRR governance.
In 2009, the Global Network of Civil Society Organizations for Disaster Reduction (GNDR), the largest network of non-
governmental organizations working on DRR with 600 member organizations from 90 different countries, conducted a
“shadow report” of HFA progress from the perspective of local communities called “Views from the Frontline.” This report
used a survey to reach local governments, local civil society organizations, and local community members, consulting the
view of a total of 7,000 people. Findings from the 2009 report were disseminated through side events and plenary sessions
at the UNISDR Global Platform for DRR, as well as online at http://www.globalnetwork-dr.org/.
In late 2008, Plan International met with the GNDR leadership to discuss inclusion of children and their roles in DRR in the
global Views from the Frontline survey. Since the survey had already been disseminated globally, it was recommended that
Plan conduct a supplementary survey specifically on children whose findings could also be published in time for the Global
Platform and featured on the GNDR website. Plan UK’s DRR team adapted the GNDR global survey to include child centred
questions, and ensured the voices of children were heard by conducting a series of child focus groups in several countries.
The child centred survey would allow Plan country offices to implement one set of surveys and send their reports both to
GNDR and to Plan UK’s office to produce the child-focused supplement report. Plan also partnered with World Vision on
this effort, and ensured the voices of over 1,000 respondents from 17 countries, 854 of whom were children and young
people were heard. The countries that participated were Bangladesh, Egypt, El Salvador, Haiti, Indonesia, Malawi, Nepal,
Nicaragua, Philippines, and Sierra Leone, Bolivia, Dominican Republic, Ghana, India, Lebanon, Pakistan, and Swaziland, and
the final report can be read at: http://www.globalnetwork-dr.org/images/reports/children%20on%20the%20frontline%
20final%20proof_lowres%202.pdf. The actual survey questions can be found in the Second Module: Planning, Monitoring
and Evaluation of this toolkit.
This advocacy work allowed for the voices of 854 children living in vulnerable communities in at risk countries to be
represented at the UNISDR Global Platform. “Inviting children to participate in formal conferences is only one option for
consulting with children. There are many valid alternatives. Experience shows that participatory activities with children at
the local level, close to where children live, encounter fewer constraints (and may often be the preferred option) compared
to formal events. Formal conferences or consultations are more effective when based on a process of local activities with
children”18. Fourth Module - Annex 3 contains a document of lessons learned from the focus groups conducted with
children during this research process.
17
The text of the Hyogo Framework can be found here: http://www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/hfa.htm
18
Inter-agency Working Group on Children’s Participation (2007). “Minimum Standards for Consulting with Children.” http://plan-international.org/about-plan/resources/
publications/participation/minimum-standards-for-consulting-with-children, p. 11
In addition to the report of the analysis of the global survey with children, Plan International and World Vision, however,
did support the participation of 16 year old Rhee from the Philippines, and 13 year old Constancio from Bolivia— to the
Global Platform in 2009. The two boys were actively engaged in DRR work in their communities and were passionate about
sharing their DRR messages at a global level. They shared their experiences at a side event by Plan, World Vision, UNICEF
and Save the Children. Their message, bolstered by the views of 854 children in the report, made a great impact at the GP,
where the children were asked to speak at the closing ceremony.
The final statement of the UNISDR’s Global Platform Chair, Mr. John Holmes, endorses children’s roles in DRR decision-
making: “Children were also seen as strong agents for change who should be involved in the decision-making
process.”19 This was a great achievement, as the UNISDR’s Chairman’s statement provides the grounds for further
advocacy work on content, application and culture changes in support of child centred DRR at country and
community level.20
Plan’s advocacy work on behalf of children has been successful in influencing the GNDR to include an indicator about
children in its 2011 Views from the Frontline global shadow report for the 2011Global Platform. This means that the 600
organizations taking part in the 2011 Global Network survey will be reporting on the following indicator:
Do local government DRR practices take into account the specific

Children and Youth needs of children and young people when planning and implementing
measures to reduce disaster risk?
Ranking: 1. No, not at all Ranking: 5. Yes, with satisfactory and effective measures in place
1.1 Children and Young People · Children actively engaged as effective agents of change at
community level
· No attempt to understand differing needs
and priorities of children and young people · Collect and disaggregate data according to age criteria
While this is only one indicator within the 20 indicators being assessed in the 2011 survey, it represents an incremental step
in raising the profile of children’s roles and right to participate in DRR internationally and holding governments accountable
for this.
Plan is also ensuring the voices of children are heard in the 2011 GNDR’s Views from the Frontline by providing guidelines
to the 600 GNDR member organizations on how to conduct focus group discussions with children. In addition, Plan country
offices (Plan Egypt and Plan Sierra Leone) are acting as National Coordinating Organizations for the 2011 GNDR effort,
which will contribute greatly to data gathering exercises with children in those countries, as they will coordinate the GNDR
data collection for all CSOs in those countries.
Lessons Learned
The successful effort to bring children’s voices and roles in disaster risk reduction at the Global Platform also had challenges.
During the Global Platform itself, the surge of interest created by Rhee and Constancio was welcomed, but it may have
overworked the child participants. Their last minute role in the closing plenary, which also greatly raised the profile of the
role of children in DRR, could be considered tokenistic by some. In order to strike a balance between providing children
access to and influence on high level global decision-making, it is important to follow some important guidelines:
1. Consulting with children in their local communities, and then sharing these consultations at global events, is one of
the most effective ways of bringing their opinions to the table, as long as the adults who represent them are effective
at ensuring those voices are heard. This was accomplished through the Children’s Views from the Frontline report
mentioned above, but can always be improved by increasing the number of participating children and increasing the
quality of the focus groups conducted.
2. Children who do attend global conferences should be provided with good preparation for their roles, and while
there can and should be flexibility for participation in other aspects of the program, not every “opportunity” for
visibility for children that presents itself is necessarily a chance for children to actually influence changes, and thus
opportunities should be analyzed completely before asking children to participate.
19
Outcome Document: Chair’s Summary of the Second Session Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction (2009). http://www.preventionweb.net/files/10750_
GP09ChairsSummary.pdf, p. 3.
20
The 2009-2011 HFA monitoring indicators can be found here: http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/hfa-monitoring/hfa-monitor/?pid:73&pif:3
3. Children who do attend global conferences should be given ample amount of time to relax, as well as to be able to
sight-see (with the appropriate guardian/chaperone) in the location they visit. Adults are easily over-worked during
conferences, but children’s right to play should be respected at these events.
Additional guidelines and standards for children’s participation in global events can be found in the resources provided in
the introduction to this module.
C ase Study #2: Child journalists at the 15th Session of the Conference of the Parties to UNFCCC
(COP15)Copenhagen, Denmark
Illustrating changes in disaster risk management and climate change policy in the area of culture in support
of child centred DRR
This case describes the two-pronged approach to advocacy focused on the advocacy area of culture that Plan International
took at the 15th Session of the Conference of the Parties to UNFCCC (COP15) held in December 2009 in Copenhagen,
Denmark. At COP15, Plan International supported a delegation of eleven young people (6 girls and 5 boys) and fourteen
adults to take part in the global conference. The young delegates came from Kenya, Indonesia, the Netherlands, Sweden,
Denmark and the UK. The young people took part in Plan’s “Global WarNing” project a young journalism program that
resulted in successful media awareness raising on young people’s roles and views on climate change and gave the young
journalists a powerful role in the event as official reporters, not just attendees. The young people also participated as
speakers and panellists at several side events by the Children in a Changing Climate21 and the Inter-Agency Standing
Committee22 sharing their views on young people’s right to participate in climate change in an attempt to influence policy
makers.
Global WarNing engaged eleven children, ages 12 to 17, from Kenya, Indonesia, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK.
These young journalists reported on a daily basis on the developments at COP15 and fed their news back to five countries
through national and local media, and through online blogs. Following media and journalism training and capacity building
by Plan’s media team, the children covered the progress of the climate change talks themselves, the incidence and success
of children and young people’s lobbying, as well as coverage of unexpected events that occurred during the two weeks of
the conference.
The young journalists were chosen through various means depending on their country contexts. Some countries held
national competitions, while others focused on nominees from the children’s Plan had been supporting as part of its wider
DRR work. All 11 children were passionate about climate change and securing children’s rights within the climate change
debate. The group was diverse both culturally and socio-economically, the latter who required better preparation for all
the participants. The selection of children was also limited to children who could speak and write fluently in English, which
by default excluded many children whose voices are truly marginalized from global negotiations on climate change but
who are the most adversely affected by the changing climate. Nonetheless, the participation of the children as young
reporters led to their empowerment as global citizens and to extensive media coverage by them and on them, reinforcing
the advocacy message that “young people are watching, monitoring and reporting on the talks”, and aiming to change the
public view of children as passive and powerless victims of the consequences of climate change.
The following media coverage and press achievements took place as a result of the young journalists work and presence at
COP15:
• Two front page hits on BBC News Online
• Video footage filed for BBC Newsnight
• Most watched video on the Dagens Nyheter website, Sweden’s largest national newspaper
• Articles published in the Jakarta Post
• Daily blog in the Netherlands Metro newspaper
• Publication on Guardian unlimited website
21
www.childreninachangingclimate.org
22
www.humanitarianinfo.org/iasc
• Publication in January edition of UK-based children’s newspaper First News

• Several articles published on BBC School News Report website
• Article published on Climatesmart.se
• Maria Wetterstrand (leader of the Swedish Green party) was interviewed and linked to the interview in her Facebook
status (2400 fans/friends)
• Several blogs updated regularly on Plan sites and elsewhere23
One of the challenges faced by the children were the late nights spent writing news copy because of their participation in
other activities during the day, underlining the importance of ensuring children, when taking part in global conferences/
events, are not overworked and of ensuring more adult support for their work. One key support mechanism that took
place during COP15 was a reserved room for the children and Plan staff to use at any time during the day, allowing for
debriefing, time and space for writing, and a rest area.
There was also extensive coverage on the presence of the young journalists themselves, on print, radio, television, and
online news around the world. In addition, the young journalists also were able to conduct impromptu interviews and
meetings with some key global leaders with influential capacity to promote children’s rights within CC decision making at
the event, including:
• Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
• Gordon Brown, UK Prime Minister
• John Holmes, UN Emergency Relief Coordinator
• Åsa-Britt Karlsson, Swedish Environment State Secretary
• John Kerry, former US Presidential candidate
• Jet Li, Goodwill Ambassador for the World Food Programme
• Wangari Maathai, renowned political and environmental activist from Kenya
• Bill McKibben, co-founder of the 350 Campaign
• John Michuki, Minister for Environment, Kenya
• Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, UK
• Mohamed Nasheed, President of the Maldives
• Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
• Mary Robinson, former Irish President
• Josette Sheeran, Executive Director World Food Programme
• Ulla Tornaes, Minister for Development Cooperation, Denmark: on children’s participation
• Margareta Wahlström, UN Special Representative of the Secretary General for Disaster Risk Reduction
• Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, President of Indonesia
23
Plan’s blog can be found at: http://planatcop15.blogspot.com/
The young people also worked with Plan and its coalition partners to influence various climate change policy makers,
through the aforementioned meetings and through participation in two side events, either as panellists or as journalists
covering the side events. These events sought to influence important actors and policy makers to consider more seriously
the role of children in climate change negotiations, but overall both the children and other Plan adult participants felt that
these events were “preaching to the choir” as most of those attending the events were stakeholders already supporting
children’s rights while key negotiators of the UNFCCC were engaged in extensive, closed door meetings. There was also
a sense that Plan’s policy ask, “that policy makers and climate change mitigation and adaption practitioners listen to
children and young people and involve them in decisions and actions to protect their future, and ours” was too specialized
and complicated at a conference where the strongest messages were the kinds that fit on buttons and stickers. By far
the presence and active participation of the young journalists had the strongest influence in promoting policy change in
support of children’s rights within a changing climate.
Lessons Learned
The roles that children and youth played at COP15 as young journalists significantly raised their profile as important actors
in the climate change debate, not just passive victims of the results of climate change. One of the important lessons learned
from the experience was that their role as journalists was an advocacy role, just as their role as panellists in side events
were. Their role as journalists sent a clear message to the international community that they were watching, monitoring
and reporting the talks, which indeed they were doing, as evidenced by the amount of media coverage they produced and
attracted. Their participation, however, had some similar challenges as the children’s participation in the Global Platform;
namely the risk of overworking children during these types of events. Many of the participants stayed up late hours to finish
their news stories, which indicates more adult support for the child journalists was necessary.
The selection process for the child journalists was different in the different countries where the children came from. While
it is important for the selection process to be adapted to country contexts, it may be important to introduce some level of
consistency, as well as to address issues of equity. In addition to preparing children for how to be journalists at these events,
it may also be important to prepare children for how to interact with each other, across different cultures and different
socio-economic backgrounds.
Fourth Module – Annexes
Fourth Module – Annex 1: Plan Cambodia DRR Advocacy Guide with Children 142
Fourth Module – Annex 1: Plan Cambodia

DRR Advocacy Guide with Children
Guidance on DRR Advocacy Training for Children
A ctivity 1: Identify the risks
(Note the risks have already been identified by children in the session of risk ranking as part of the VCA process)
Prioritizing the risks

This activity will help children review and revise the list of risks that children identified through previous risk assessment
activities in the community. Once the priority risk has been identified/refreshed, children’s groups will review the existing
disaster causes and impacts that they already identified during the child centred disaster risk reduction training.
Materials needed: Flipcharts, pens, and colour cards
Time: 60 min; 20 minutes for instruction; 30 min for discussion; 10 min for short presentation on the problem tree.
Steps:
1. Split the larger group into separate groups of children from each community.
2. For each community, give them the risk ranking table that they already prioritized in the risk ranking session.
3. Facilitator asks children to review and revise the existing risk ranking table if they want to change.
4. Once the children identify their priority risk, ask children to review and revise the existing disaster causes and
impacts/consequences (using a table or drawing)
5. Ask children to make a short presentation to the big group on the causes and impacts of the disaster they have
prioritised.
6. Provide feedback and questions to identify potential missing causes and impacts of disaster that were not identified
by the group.
A ctivity 2: Risk reduction concept based on risk priority in Activity 1
Risk Reduction concept

This activity will help children understand risk reduction measures to address the risks that children already identified and
prioritized in the activity 1.
Time: 70 min; 10 minutes for instruction; 20 min for discussion; 40 min for short presentation.
Steps:
2. Ask the children to think about the activity to reduce the risk identified in activity 1 (or to stop it from happening or
having a big impact on their communities – for example affecting many people, their homes, livelihoods).
3. Ask children to make a short presentation to the big group
4. Explain to the children any additional risk reduction measures they did not cover based on other DRR information
about their community.
A ctivity 3: Venn diagram
Identify the actors

Children are to identify the key-organizations, groups and individuals that are stakeholders and have decision making
power in their communities. Once these actors are identified, children are to decide the level of influence of each actor.
Time: 40 min; 10 min for instruction, 20 min for group discussion, 10 min for presentation
Steps:
2. Based on the causes and consequences of the risks prioritized in activity 1, ask the children to discuss using three
questions: 1) who are contributing to cause the problems? 2) Who are being affected? 3) Who are responsible/
needed to take action to address the problem (address the causes and also address the impacts)? Then ask them to
write the answers on the flipchart by using the below table:
Who are responsible/

Who are contributing to
Risks prioritized Who are being affected? can take action to
causing the issues?
address the issues?
3. Ask the children in the group to discuss “Who are those most influential which can make changes for the
community/family/household/school? – based on the problem prioritized in previous exercise. Then ask children to
discuss in the group and make a circle on the actors that can be most influential in achieving the necessary changes
in the community.
4. Ask each group to present their works to other participants.
A ctivity 4: Decide what changes you would like to see for each of these actors
The changes for each actor

This activity will help children to identify the level of change for each actor that they want to see.
Time: 90 min; 10 minutes for activity explanation; 60 min for discussion; 20 min for presentation and discussion
Steps:
1) Split the larger group into separate groups of children from each community.
2) For each community, list the actors that they already prioritized in the activity 3 in horizontal table. Then ask the
children to discuss with the two questions: 1) what are the present/current behaviours of the actors toward the
issues (risks identified activity) – for example how does the behaviour of these actors make your community more
vulnerable to risks/unsafe? 2) what are the present/current behaviours of the actors towards the views on the child
peer educators (CPE)? 3) What would be the best way they should behave so your community can be safer from the
risks you prioritized?

Risk Assessment Module from Plan Indonesia
3) Let the children try to come up with something, if they are stuck then explain further to the children based on the
example given below for answering the three questions above.
Current behaviours towards

Risks Future behaviours
Actors the issues/risk and child peer
prioritized we want to see
educators (CPE)
Drought -Commune • Commune and village leaders • Commune and village leaders
leaders are making suggestion to cooperate with community
the government for building people and children to dig canal
-Village leaders
irrigation system in the • Commune and other village
commune. leaders value children
• Commune and other villager participation in disaster risk
leaders provide limited child reduction.
participation in disaster risk • Commune and other village
reduction. leaders play a leading role
• Commune and other village on raising awareness on the
leaders think children do not importance of engaging
have something important to children in disaster risk
contribute reduction activity.
4) Ask the children’s groups to do the presentation on their result

5) Discuss in the big group to agree on the changes that they want to see.
A ctivity 5: How children can influence the actors to make the change? Developing Advocacy strategies
Strategies development
This activity will help children understand the concept of advocacy for influencing people and understand how to develop
an advocacy strategy where the activities are aimed to influence the selected actors to achieve the changes children would
like to see.
Time: 120 min; 10 minutes for activity explanation; 90 min for discussion; 20 min for presentation and discussion
Steps:
1) Explain the children in the big group on how to influence a Decision Maker with flow as below:
a. Determine who is the decision maker:
• Ask the children who are the decision markers in their family (their mothers or fathers)? (Note to facilitator:
modify this choice if children are living with different caretakers, such as grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. Also
modify this list if children live with extended families – grandmothers in some cultures are the decision makers)
• Give an example – if you wanted to buy new clothes from the market (who would you ask? your mother or your
father?). (Note to facilitator: depending on the group of children you are working with, it may be appropriate to
use another example of something they can convince their parents to do or buy for them)
• Then ask them why would they ask their mother or father?
• Note down the reasons and review these
b. Determine how to influence decision makers

• Ask the children what they would do to convince their mothers/fathers to buy clothes for them?
• Write their answers on the board. The responses should include:
i) Ask them for clothes
ii)Tell them you will do something good if you get this (eg: help to look after your younger sisters or brothers/do
farming with your parents)
iii) Argue that you have the right to have new clothes because: you got good grades at school/you help with the
household to make income)
c. Review the different responses given and how this relates to developing an advocacy strategy
i) Ask the decision maker for something you want (the change you want them to help with)
ii) Explain/argue how if this change is achieved there will be good results/something good can happen.
iii) Explain/argue that your rights in regards to this change (right for protection from disasters, rights in relation to
the priority risk their identified).
d. Summarize these steps in relation to the risks they have prioritized and what we are trying to achieve in relation to
disaster risk reduction and making their communities safer.
e. Motivate children that if they can convince their parents to give them new clothes, they can also come up with a
strategy to convince decision makers to address the risks in their communities as what you do with your parent is to
advocate with them for new clothes is also what you can do to advocate with the decision markers to address the
risks in your communities.
3) For each community, discuss what children should do in order to influence the actors to achieve the changes they
prioritized in activity 3.
4) Explain to the children the example from the table below on how to influence the actors to make the change in the
community.
Commune and Village Leaders

Children want The activity that children need to What is needed Who will do what to make this When
to see do for influencing the actors for happen?
change Funding/technical Name of CPE member, adult
support support required
Commune and 1) Hold meeting(s) with

village leaders commune and village leaders
value children to share with them children’s
participation ideas/concerns on the issue
in addressing prioritized and to sensitize
the drought them on the importance of
(or other risk engaging children and on
prioritized by youth issues/concerns
the children’s 2) Produce campaigns and
groups). disseminate materials on
children’s ideas for changes to
address the risks identified
5) Ask the children’s groups to do the presentation of their result
6) Discuss in the big groups to agree on the advocacy strategies
A ctivity 6: Integration of Advocacy Strategy and DRR Action Plan
Plan of Action Priorities

This activity will help children to integrate DRR plan of action and advocacy strategy into one action plan for implementing
it whereby they are aware of roles and responsibilities, timeframe and technical and financial support to achieve both
activities (the micro project and activities identified under their advocacy strategy).
Time: 90 min; 10 minutes for introduction; 60 min for discussion; 20 min for presentation
Steps:
2) For each community, please use the advocacy strategy and DRR action plan that they developed as references.
3) Ask them to integrate DRR action plan and advocacy strategy into one table by reviewing the duplicated activities
and deleting unworkable activities. Please use the format below to consolidate it.
Please also explain to the children how to complete the table below before asking them go to the group discussion.
Any support from Plan staff,

Who are responsible to other adults/Commune
Activity start the process? (name of When Council/teachers?
group member)
Funding Technical
Hold meeting(s)
with commune and
village leaders to
sensitize them on
the importance of
engaging children
and on youth issues/
concerns
Fourth Module – Annex 2: Making a Video to Educate and Advocate 147
Fourth Module – Annex 2: Making a

Video to Educate and Advocate
Fourth Module – Annex 2: Making a

Video to Educate and Advocate
Disaster Risk Reduction

& Climate Change
Making a Video
to Educate & Advocate
Information adapted from: The Tearfund Advocacy Toolkit “Practical Action in Advocacy” and “Understanding Advocacy,”
Advocates for Action & Students Partnership Worldwide “A toolkit to equip young people with the skills to become powerful
advocates for Youth Sexual Reproductive Health and Rights (YSRH&R),VaneKlasen and Miller: “A New Weave of Power,
People and Politics,” and IIED: Pretty, Guijt, Scoones and Thompson: “A Training Guide for Participatory Learning in Action.”
What does it mean to make a video

to educate and advocate?
To educate is to use video as a way to share information about
a topic – such as disaster risk reduction and climate change in
your community.
To advocate is to use the video for change. It is a targeted way
to understand what you want to change… and to use video as
one way to bring about that change.
It is deciding:
• What do you want to change in your community?
• Who can help make that change happen?
• How can you influence them to make the change?
Advocacy video in practice – Proposed activity
You are living in a village where you

have to cross a river to get to school.
There is no bridge where you need to
cross. During the Monsoon, it floods.
Children who have tried to cross have
lost books, missed exams and even
drowned. The situation is getting
worse with climate change because
the Monsoon is now longer each year.
Split into groups and brainstorm:

• WHAT CHANGE is needed in this situation?
• WHO do you think can make change happen?
• What do you NEED TO SHOW in a video to INFLUENCE them?
The children’s video for advocacy

This is a 3:30-min clip from the 20-minute children-made video. It was edited for the Internet.
INSTRUCTIONS:
Put the
video on your
laptop and
insert here
Through Insert
Movie File.
Make it big
to fit in the
box and click
to play. Delete
This message
What happened…
Here is how children in Nepal designed their video for advocacy:
• What was the CHANGE they wanted? Build a bridge to reach school safely
• WHO did they think could make that change happen?
-- Older people in the community (elders,

parents, teachers) and a local NGO
can work together to influence
government for the funds or raise
the funds themselves
-- The District government office can provide

the funds to build the bridge
-- Ministries in the main city of Nepal

can provide funds to support building
bridges
What happened…
HOW did they make their film to INFLUENCE change?
They made a video drama showing the problems in crossing the river during
flooding, including a child drowning. In the video they decided to ask the
community to support their problems, as well as the District government
officials who could help them.
WHERE did they show the film?

In the community and at a District
meeting on climate change problems.
The supporting INGO showed it to
Ministries in Kathmandu.
RESULT: The community and local

NGO are supporting the bridge.
The Village District Committee
Secretariat has said that building
a bridge in the village would be
a priority for 2009. Children from Nepal who made the video
Is building a bridge mitigation or adaptation?
The climate is changing due to global warming that is

happening because of human activity. People all over the world
are now having to plan for mitigation and adaptation.
What is the difference?
Mitigation:
Find and act on ways to
stop warming the earth
Adaptation:
Find and act on ways to
lower risks to effects of
a changing climate
Is building a bridge mitigation or adaptation?

Answer: ADAPTATION. In the community where the children made the
video, floods are increasing and becoming more extreme. Building a bridge
will reduce the children’s vulnerability to floods, thus reducing their risk to
disaster. This is an adaptation strategy.
Adaptation:
Find and act on ways to Climate change can impact:
lower risks to effects of a
Livelihoods
changing climate
Education
Health
Access to water
Emotional & physical well being
Adaptation strategies try to reduce risk
Adaptation strategies might include:
• Stopping deforestation and planting trees

to reduce the risk of landslides or floods;
• Improving farming technologies to adapt to

changing rainfall patterns;
• Improving buildings, roads or bridges to

adapt to more extreme weather;
• Learning more about climate change to

develop good adaptation plans;
• Implementing Disaster Risk Reduction plans

Adaptation in practice – proposed activity #1
Climate Impacts & Adaptation: Impacts

This activity will help you think about climate impacts in your communities, and
possible adaptation strategies. It should be facilitated by someone who understands
climate change and adaptation.
Materials needed: Large sheets of paper; marker pens

Time: 50 min; 20 minutes for activity; 30 for presentations and discussion
Steps:
1. Split into five groups
2. Each group is given one of the five topics: Livelihoods, Education, Health,
Access to Water, and Emotion & Physical Well Being
3. Each group writes down impacts for 10 minutes on their topic
(i.e. What would be the impacts of climate change on education?);
and then they write down adaptation ideas for 10 minutes.
Adaptation in practice – proposed activity #2

Climate Impacts & Adaptation: Scenarios
This activity will help you think about adaptation strategies based on relevant
scenarios. It should be facilitated by someone who understands climate change and
adaptation and can be adapted to scenarios based on local impacts.
Materials needed: Large sheets of paper; marker pens

Time: 30 min; 10 minutes for activity; 20 for presentations and discussion
Steps:
1. Split into two groups and give each group a scenario
2. The group decides what to do, putting the ideas on paper if they want
GROUP 1: You live on an island and all the safe drinking water is gone. You only have
access to rain water. What would you and your family need to adapt to this problem?
GROUP 2: You are in a village situated on the side of a mountain. Landslides have
destroyed your crops so there is a food shortage. There is little money as well to send
you to school. What would you and your family need to adapt to this problem?
Let’s make a video for advocacy on

disaster risk reduction & climate
change!
6. Evaluate
Climb the stairs 5. Show video
to success!
4. Make a video
3. Make a good plan
2. Do some research
1. Identify what to change
1. Identify what to change

There are often many problems that need to be fixed in a
community – any community. But one video can’t fix them
all. So you want to pick the issue or issues that are the most
important to you that you want to focus on for education and
advocacy so your video can have
THE POWER FOR CHANGE!
Building on the disaster and climate change risks you have

identified already for you community, use the following
activities to determine the most important issues that you
want to try and change.
1. Identify the Issue – proposed activity #1

Ranking Priorities
This activity will help you prioritize a list of issues that you identified as needing to be changed
through previous risk assessment activities in your community. This information will be
used for making your film.
Materials needed: Large sheets of papers, pens, flashcards

Time: 30 min; 10 minutes for activity; 10 min for discussion; 10 min for ranking
Steps:
1) Split the larger group into a group of children from each community
2) For each community, list the issues raised in the previous risk assessment on a piece of
paper in a table (see next page)
3) Put the paper in a place so that when someone votes no one else can see
4) Tell each child that they get five checkmarks to choose the issues they want. They can give
one topic 5 checkmarks, or split it between different issues. They must use all five
checkmarks and should not tell others how they voted.
5) After the vote, count up the check marks to decide the top priority issues.
An alternative approach is to write all of the issues onto separate flashcards and ask
the children to place them in order in a line from most important to least important.
The process of moving the cards around stimulates greater discussion and negotiation,
although a strong personality could control the activity.
1. Identify the Issue – example
Deforestation causing landslides
Rains flooding school during exams
Drought causing food shortages
Excessive rain on school rooftop

disrupting study
Shortage of drinking water due to

contamination during floods
More malaria due to warmer

temperatures
Crops destroyed due to irregular

rainfall (not able to thrive in water)
Girls don’t want to go to school

during flood because of wet clothes
1. Identify the Issue – proposed activity #2

Getting Worse/Most Serious Box
This exercise allows you to talk about the problems before prioritizing them. This could be done
with everyone before the ranking exercise (proposed activity #1) or to narrow the top choices
Materials needed: Large sheets of papers, pens, flashcards
Time: 25 min; 10 minutes for activity; 15 min for discussion
1) Split the larger group into a group of children from each community
2) For each community, list the issues raised in the previous risk assessment on flashcards
3) Have each group decide a timeline to talk about (maybe the last year)
4) Have them discuss severity vs. seriousness of issues. Discuss as a group.
Most Serious Serious Less Serious
Deforestation Drought causing

Crops destroyed due
Getting causing landslides food shortages
to irregular rainfall
Worse Rains flooding
(not able to thrive in
water)
school during exams
Shortage of drinking More malaria due to Excessive rain on

Staying water due to warmer temperatures school rooftop
The Same contamination during disrupting study
floods
Getting Girls don’t want to go

to school during flood
Better with wet clothes
2. Do some research
Once you have identified the main issue:
Learn more about it!
• Who does this issue affect? How? And why?
• Who is involved?
• What needs to change?

2. Research the Issue – proposed activity #1

The Problem Tree
This is one best done in a group with children from each community. This activity will
help you break down the issues and identify the root causes and consequences.
Materials: Flip chart and marker pens/pen and paper // Time: 20 mins
Steps:
1. Split the larger group into a group of
children from each community
2. Identify the core issue you are working on
3. Write this on the trunk of your problem tree.
(e.g. – school is flooded during yearly
monsoon)
3. Brainstorm a list of causes (e.g. school
located on flood plain). These are the roots
of your tree.
4. Brainstorm a list of consequences of the
core problem (e.g. If school not relocated, it
could collapse during a flood.) These are
the branches of your tree.
The Problem Tree
Steps:
5. After making the trees, it can be productive
to stick the trees up on the wall and discuss
each topic and how it relates to the key
problem. Once you have completed this
exercise you may want to identify further
research you need to do before making the
videos in each community. (e.g. – who you
will need to talk to further understand these
problems).
When you are coming up with your goals and

objectives of your advocacy strategy you
may find it useful to refer to the causes on
your problem tree.

The ‘Why?’ Exercise
This is an exercise you can do this while working on the problem tree. The ‘why?’ exercise is a
method that keeps asking ‘why?’ until it gets to the root of the problem. It makes the connection
between the wider context and specific issues.
Step 1: State the main issue.

Step 2: Keep asking ‘but why?’ until the group can go no further with their explanations of the
causes behind it. You can do this with each root to get a more in-depth understanding
• We are missing exams because the school is flooded. But why?

• The building is on a flood plain? But why?
• It was build here 5 years ago. But why?
• The land was free?
(NOTE: This might help you decide to focus your video on relocating the school as a solution if
free land available)
• We are missing exams because the school is flooded. But why?

• The monsoon is now longer and the flooding season has changed to exam time. But why?
• The government has set the exam schedule and only they can move it. But why?
• It is their job.
(NOTE: This might help you decide to make a video to ask the government to change exam
times due to the changing weather patterns)
3. Make a good plan

For a plan, set goals and objectives of the film:
Set a goal: Your overall aim — what do you hope the
DRR/climate change video(s) will achieve in the long term?
Set objectives: Measurable steps you think you can achieve
along the way to help you to reach your goal.
Set the target audiences The target audience is who you want
to watch the film. They are the people who can help you solve
the problem you choose to address. Be specific in how you will
reach them and what types of media you need to do so.
Set the timeline/responsibilities: When will everything take

place (videotaping, editing, showings) and who is responsible?
3. Make a Plan – Goal

Setting the Goal of the Video
Once you have gathered all your research together, you can run this activity to narrow down
the main goal you want to set for the video.
Materials: 3 groups of different coloured cards and marker pens // Time: 25 mins
Steps:
1. Findings: Write down the main things you discovered about the issue (you can start with
the roots from The Problem Tree exercise and add new information from your additional
research in the community). Write each piece of information on a card.
2. Implications: Write the implications on different coloured cards. A good way to phrase
your implication is “There is a need...”.
3. Recommendations: Write the recommendations on a different coloured card. What action
do we want? What would make the situation better?
4. Sort the information onto a graph for discussion on the ultimate goal of the video
Findings Implications Recommendations
School is There is a need to Relocate school to

on a flood move the school higher ground.
plain or children could
drown Flood-proof school
3. Make a Plan – Objectives

SMART Objectives
To aim help the children write SMART objectives. This can be done after the goal is
set. An objective is the intended impact of the video; the specific change that you
want to see. It is the most important part of your strategy as it sets your
measurement of success.
Steps: The children can write objects on cards for discussion, or have one child
write ideas on flipchart paper and discuss until all agree on objectives.
All objectives should be S M A R T: Specific / Measurable / Achievable /

Relevant / Time-bound
An example of a SMART objective: To raise “XXX amount” to relocate a school to

a safer location by 2010. For our example, we know this works because:
• It is Specific because it gives a number
• It is Measurable because it sets an amount to raise
• It is Achievable because the Education District has allocated money for
infrastructure
• It is Relevant because it will solve the problem of school flooding
• It is Time-bound because it will happen by 2010
3. Plan the Strategy – Audience

Setting the Target Audience
Use this exercise to decide which individuals have the power to help you to
achieve your goal and objectives?
Materials: Flipchart and marker pens.
Time: 30 mins
Step: For each community, have them fill out this form through brainstorming.
Discuss influence at various levels. List everyone you can think of.
Audience How can help Where show video Format
Local: Local: Local: Local:

1. District officials 1. Provide funds for school 1. District showing 1. DVD-laptop
2. Community 2. Support school move; labor 2. Community showing 2. VCD-player
National: National: National: National:

1. Plan Intl. INGOs 1. Funding; programmes 1. Plan office; workshops 1. DVD-office
2. Ministry 2. Funding; child rights 2. In office, private mtg. 2. DVD-laptop
International: International: International: International:

1. COP-15 1. Funding/programmes 1. Copenhagen, Den. 1. DVD
2. YouTube 2. Awareness of child rights 2. Internet (Plan post) 2. .mpeg/.wmv
3. Make a Plan –
Timeline/Responsibilities
Once you have developed a plan, it is important to know how
it will take place in terms of timing, resources, budgeting, etc.
Planning should not be too rigid. Rather, the possibility of
making changes should be built into the plan.
The important things to decide at the beginning of the

planning process are:
• Who will do what?

• When will this be done, and with whom?
• What types of inputs, besides people, will be needed?
4. Make a video
Great! It’s time to make the video. Now that you know what
you want to change… you will work with the PV facilitators in
creating the best video to meet your goals to educate and
advocate.
Remember, when you make the video:

• Use simple and concise language
• Tailor the message to fit the audiences
• Ensure the language and tone is consistent with the message
• Since you will show this internationally and on the Internet,
use only original or licensed music, photos and images. You
MUST have proper permissions for any content in the video.
5. Show the video

Once your video is made, get
it out there in community
showings, at District
government meetings, to
national Ministers, on the
Internet, at workshops, in other
communities, in other countries
and at international
conferences!
Keep track of who saw your

video, and what changes
happened for you.
6. Evaluate the Project

Education and advocacy takes time and effort and the only
way to make sure that that time and effort doesn’t go to waste
is to see what impact they have had. So keep track of the
goals you set – working with the Plan researcher… and refer
back to the SMART objectives to see if the video achieved
what you wanted. Through evaluation, you will learn how to
become better filmmakers and agents of change!
5. Evaluate – proposed activity

Hopes and Fears Scoring
Many workshops start with children sharing hopes and fears of what they may learn.
Here is an activity to evaluate how well the project addressed the main issues
Materials: Large sheets of paper, pens, sticks and symbols // Time: 30 minutes
Steps:
1) Take the main hopes and fears from the first day of the workshop.
2) Take the negative statements, and turn it into positive statements (for example,
if someone says “Afraid about not learning participatory video”… change to
“Learned participatory video”
3) The children mark how satisfied they are that the project addressed the hopes
and fears.
HOPES & FEARS
Will I improve climate knowledge
Will I learn participatory video

Fourth Module – Annex 3: Conducting Children’s Focus Group Discussions 162
Fourth Module – Annex 3: Conducting

Children’s Focus Group Discussions
Conducting Children’s Focus Group Discussions: Reflections and Guidelines
Evaluation document by Dan Walden and Kelly Hawrylyshyn
Plan UK: 2010
In 2009, Plan’s Children on the Frontline survey, on children’s participation in disaster risk reduction, saw 375 girls and
479 boys from 17 countries take part in focus group discussions (FGDs) with Plan and World Vision. The FGDs responded
to a set of questions originally developed by the Global Network for Disaster Reduction (based on the Characteristics of a
Disaster Resilient Community), which were adapted by Plan UK for a child centred context.
Guidelines for future FGDs with children on Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) have been produced based on feedback from
participating Plan offices.
Guidelines are provided on the following areas:
1. Engagement with children and young people
2. Understanding of risk and the global DRR Framework structure (the Hyogo Framework for Action or HFA)
3. Levels of knowledge on DRR activities
4. Adult presence and input at FGDs
5. Conducting FGDs by gender
6. Inclusion of marginalised children
7. Plan staff
8. Learning to inform programme strategy
9. Questionnaire
10. Timeframe
Additional resources are found in the final three sections:
• Some Lessons Learned on Facilitating Children’s Participation
• Useful References on Facilitating Children’s Participation
• DRR Jargon Busters
This initial set of guidelines will serve to demonstrate key challenges and point to factors for consideration in conducting
appropriate, effective and productive children’s focus group discussions.
1 Engagement with children and young people in the focus group setting
Challenges encountered in regards to children’s engagement

in FGDs relate to both the format/delivery and the conduct/
outcome of focus group discussions.
To ensure children’s active engagement in the focus groups
different types of engagement tools were utilised for making the
most of children’s input and perspective. This included drawings,
role play, games, flash cards. These do require more preparatory
work but can result in more effective input from the children.
In many cases it was witnessed that children were especially
keen to take part in FGDs when the organisers/facilitators of the
discussions were also children. To address this it would require
child DRR ‘champions’ to be identified and for them to be trained
in FGD facilitation skills to take on such a role.
It is important to know ‘how to approach’ engaging with children – of different ages, and contexts – and understand and
appreciate that the children, as well as the ‘data collectors’, may expect to ‘get something’ out of their engagement (i.e.:
It is important to ensure the children who took part in the FGDs are then shared the outputs and outcomes resulting from
their participation. Avoid extractive exercises!) .
More in-depth exploration of the details and intricacies of children’s engagement in focus group discussions is available in
reflections and research papers from other organisations and academics. See the section in useful references for children’s
participation below.
Recommendation: There are examples of good practice available from some country programmes, for example El Salvador
(flash cards): Country programmes should explore and share with one another proven tools and techniques for engagement
with children which promote gaining children’s full honest input and perspective, and mutual learning by both children and
adults. Explore the potential for children to lead FGDs. To avoid making FGDs purely ‘extractive’ exercises it is important to
take time to produce a child friendly version of any report produced from findings of the FGDs.
2 Understanding of risk and HFA structure
In many countries where the survey was conducted, DRR-type activities were underway but not known as or labelled ‘DRR’.
In others DRR was an alien concept.
The importance of “sensitisation” to the topic/ issues was highlighted by Plan staff’s feedback and feedback from participants
of the broader Views from the Frontline evaluation. A simple understanding of risks and hazards – and importantly, the Hyogo
Framework for Action (HFA) on DRR – will significantly open the discussion to more young (and adult) community stakeholders.
Similarly complexities with terminology can close doors to people who do have extensive understanding of the realities
of disaster risk and climate change – using accessible language or explaining technical terms will prevent the exclusion of
people who have valuable knowledge to share (Plan staff may find useful the links to DRR ‘jargon busters’, provided in the
last section of this document).
Prior knowledge of topics and some technical terminology will enable children and adults to better understand the
discussion and to provide valuable feedback on their roles and options. Difficulties arise when people do not have access
to relevant information and thus are not aware of the technicalities being discussed. People often have rich practical
experience which risks being overlooked through the perception that they “don’t know what they want” or how to go
about trying to get it.
Recommendation: Ensure that all survey participants are aware of/ informed about disaster risk reduction, the global DRR
framework (the HFA), and national/ local disaster management mechanisms prior to focus group discussions in order that
they understand the topic and can take an active role in discussion. Provide assistance with technical terminology but do
not overload participants with jargon. FGD facilitators must be comfortable with and fully informed of the DRR terminology
and concepts.
3 Levels of knowledge on DRR activities
Directly related to point 2, participants’ level of knowledge on DRR and DRR

activities will affect their activeness in discussions, and even their inclination
to take part in the first place. It is important that those organising discussions
are sensitive to the levels of knowledge potential participants have on the
topic and approach participants appropriately and accessibly. The FGD
may be composed of people with some level of knowledge as a result of
sensitisation described in point 2; people with lots of knowledge as a result
of active participation in local DRR strategy implementation; and people with
no knowledge (due to marginalisation or other factors). All must be catered
for in order to ensure a representative response from the population being
analysed. It is important not to exclude other voices on knowledge merit
alone. See point 5.
Among young participants, some disparate outcomes of having more knowledge on DRR than others included being
“teased” by their peers in some cases, compared to active encouragement to take part in others.
Recommendation: Facilitators of focus groups should unpack understanding of disaster risk reduction in the local context.
This might be done through exercises or games at the very beginning of FGDs. It is also the responsibility of facilitators to
manage exclusion, “teasing” and similar discouraging behaviour.
4 Adult presence and input at FGD
In some cases adults were present at FGDs, and in others they were not (or
only present as facilitators). Where adults were present, children were given
the opportunity to demonstrate their abilities to adults. This was successful.
Often however adults would interject/ answer before the children had
a chance to speak. The result of this can be positive: where adults hold
their comments until children have spoken, the children can demonstrate
to adults that they also know the answers and can contribute. But adult
presence can also be negative: where adults interject, children’s confidence
to speak is obstructed. Even where adults are present but not speaking,
there is a risk that children will feel less comfortable in sharing their
thoughts fully and honestly.
Recommendation: Focus group discussions should be separate for children and adults and, if possible, groups should work
in age groups, e.g. 7-9, 10 – 14 etc. (local context might make this difficult to achieve: where compromise is necessary,
remember the objective is to ensure children feel confident to express and share their views fully and honestly for the
benefit of all present). Separate FGDs can then be followed by the opportunity to exchange findings/ views in plenary
discussions with stakeholders of all ages.
5 Conducting FGDs by gender
It was requested that boys’ and girls’ FGDs be held separately – and that
numbers of boys and girls in FGDs were recorded. There was varied success
on this count, resulting in an overall proportion of 45% girl respondents,
just under 2/3 of which were actually in mixed focus groups. In many cases
it is difficult to separate children by gender for this type of exercise – and
where mixed focus groups must take place it is crucial that girls’ and boys’
views and voices are heard to the same extent. This is especially important
in cases where there are less girls in the mixed groups than boys, or where
boys are less outspoken than girls/ or engaged in at risk behaviour (eg:
gangs – see point 6 below).
Recommendation: Every effort should be made to conduct gender disaggregated (separate boys and girls) FGDs. This will
ensure that girls’ and boys’ views are heard equally, and that both girls and boys have the confidence to give their opinions
and ideas in full. Where mixed FGDs are necessary the ratio of boys to girls should be as even as possible and each group
should be supported and encouraged to say what they truly think, and given sufficient chance to speak and be heard.
6 Inclusion of marginalised children
Greater focus in future on inclusion of marginalised children (out of school, disabled, from different ethnic groups, extreme
poverty, ‘gang’ members) will ensure that their views and voices are included. This did not happen uniformly across the
Children on the Frontline survey.
Recommendation: This can be achieved in future though partnership with specialist civil society and community
organisations working with marginalised groups, amongst other things. (Plan Sierra Leone, for example, partnered with
DRIM, the Disabled Rights Movement). Such partnerships and associations should be pursued.
7 Plan staff
It was found that increasing the knowledge of disasters and DRR

concepts among Plan staff broadly – not just the DRR specialists
– is important. Fostering greater understanding of disasters
and DRR throughout Plan will enable greater insight when,
for example, youth engagement specialists are brought in for
facilitation.
Engaging Plan staff in capacity building for direct engagement
with children is similarly important. When engaging with
children, facilitators must be respectful. They must remember
they are interacting with children and treat them with
appropriate sensitivity.
Recommendation: Staff should be provided with sufficient DRR
& youth engagement training. Engage child rights and other
specialist staff in DRR capacity building activities, for subject-
specific discussions, and for engagement and interaction with
children in different activities.
8 Learning to inform programme strategy
As well as personal learning for less DRR-aware Plan staff, insight was also gained in some places from FGDs to inform
programme strategy. For example, how existing DRR interventions might be improved, where to focus project interventions
in future, and whom to aim to work with (partners, beneficiaries).
For newly emerging DRR projects and programmes (e.g. Nepal) the survey process served to help planning and proposal-
writing, etc.
This aspect of situational analysis learning, even where Plan staff have some knowledge of DRR, is important to bear in
mind: this is ‘our chance to understand it better’ too.
Recommendation: Be prepared for in-house learning: Both in terms of giving basic training to Plan staff and survey
facilitators on DRR and HFA (point 6 above), and also in terms of identifying and noting lessons for existing and future DRR
and other development interventions.
9 Questionnaire
The questionnaire itself proved difficult for some focus groups. The length of the survey affected the fluidity of discussion
and the ability of facilitators to retain interest among participants, especially where children had less knowledge of DRR.
Broad and conceptual questions, (e.g. ‘climate change’) caused some confusion among child and adult respondents.
Adaptation to the ‘child context’ was perhaps insufficient for translation into the focus group arena. Note feedback on the
challenges of the length and complexity of the survey was also received by participants in the broader/ adult Views from
the Frontline survey.
Recommendation: Future surveys should be adapted for a child friendly context – shorter and more relevant to their
needs and learning. See suggestions above on child friendly formats (drawings, role-plays, flashcards) Children should be
borne in mind as respondents to questions as well as in many cases the ‘topic’ of questions.
10 TTimeframe
Time was a crucial factor in the quality of the feedback generated from the FGDs, for several reasons:
– time for understanding surveys and completing any necessary translation;
– time for planning and organising focus groups;
– time to actually take part in the focus groups (how much time);
– time at which to hold focus groups (when: after school, at school etc);
– time for feedback activities;
– time for any necessary training of staff…
Similar critique was expressed among the organisations taking part in the broader/ adult Views from the Frontline survey.
Different timescales determine what choices are made for survey and focus group facilitation methods, participants
selected – and available resources (both human and financial) are also an issue in many of these time considerations. It was
generally asserted that more time for preparation and execution of the tasks would have benefited greatly the process and
the outputs.
Recommendation: To the best of their ability Plan staff at all levels/ stages should communicate completely and well in
advance about preparation and survey timescales. This includes advanced ‘warning’ so community/ child preparation (e.g.
a series of workshops) can take place on DRR/ HFA, facilitators’ preparedness; and also ensuring that appropriate survey
methods can be chosen and prepared in advance of the ‘arrival’ of the survey at country offices and programme units.
Some Lessons Learned on Facilitating Children’s Participation

Adapted for the context of Focus Group Discussions from 12 Lessons Learned from Children’s participation in the UN
General Assembly Special Session on Children (Save the Children)
1. Work with adults on how they can encourage children's participation is as important as the work with
children themselves
2. Children's participation requires sufficient time, funding and planning if it is to be meaningful and good
quality.
3. 'Child friendly' information is essential in order to give children the same access to information as adults.
4. The selection of children needs to be sensitive to issues of representation and inclusion, in order to both
maximise the experience/views brought into FGDs and to inform appropriate responses.
5. Language is a major barrier to children's participation. Proper attention needs to be given to the translation
of materials and the ready availability of interpreters, as well as child friendly language.
6. Follow-up to meetings needs to be an essential part of the process of children's participation - not an
afterthought.
7. Young adults are an important resource in supporting the participation of children.
8. Participation processes are vulnerable to adult manipulation. Measures need to be taken to guard against this and to
integrate tolerance and respect for the opinion of others into the process.
9. Child protection must be built into every aspect of the planning for an event or process involving children.
10. Systematic evaluation is essential to improve practice and to learn for the future.
11. Adults accompanying children to engage in activities which inform decision making need to be clear about their
roles and responsibilities, but also given opportunities to use their skills and experience when the children are busy
elsewhere.
Useful References on Facilitating Children’s Participation

ACPF (n.d.) ‘Youth Participation: concepts, models and experiences’ UNFPA and African Child Policy Forum
Children in a Changing Climate (2009) ‘A right to participate: Securing children’s role in climate change adaptation’
London: Plan
Cockburn, G (2000) ‘Meaningful Youth Participation in International Conferences: a case study of the international
conference on war-affected children’ Winnipeg: CIDA
CRIN (2002) ‘CRIN Newsletter # 16: Children and young people’s participation’ newsletter number 16, October 2002
Hart, J. et al (2004) ‘Children changing their world: Understanding and evaluating children’s participation in development’
London: Plan
Lansdown G (2001) ‘Promoting Children’s Participation in Democratic Decision-making’ UNICEF
Plan (2006) ‘Child Advocates – Supporting children to stand up for their rights!’ A paper for adult facilitators of children
and youth organisations: Plan Togo
Plan (2009) ‘Children as active citizens: Addressing discrimination against children’s engagement in political and civil
society processes’ Discussion paper
Plan (2009) ‘Global Warning: Children’s right to be heard in global climate change negotiations’ London: Plan
Save the Children (2003) ‘So you want to consult with children? A toolkit of good practice’ London: Save the children
Save the Children (2004) ‘12 Lessons Learned from Children’s participation in the UN General Assembly Special Session
on Children’ London: Save the Children
DRR Jargon Busters

PreventionWeb: The Disaster Risk Reduction professional resource
Website
http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/terminology/
UN ISDR: United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

PDF file: annex from ISDR (2004) ‘Living with Risk’
(simplified address) http://tiny.cc/ISDRterminology
UNFCCC: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change glossary

Website
(simplified address) http://tiny.cc/downwithjargon
Join us on Facebook
www.facebook.com/planuk
Engage with us on Twitter

www.twitter.com/planuk
Finsgate, 5-7 Cranwood Street, London EC1V 9LH

Tel: 0300 777 9777 (UK) +(44) 20 7482 9777 (Non-UK)
Fax: 0300 777 9778 (UK) +(44) 20 7482 9778 (Non-UK)
Email: mail@plan-international.org.uk
Web: www.plan-uk.org

Child-Centred - DRR - Toolkit Theory of Change

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Child-Centred - DRR - Toolkit Theory of Change

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Child-Centred DRR Toolkit

© Plan International 2010

First Module – Training Children on

About this Module

Purpose and use of this manual

Composition of the Training Group

Group Size for Training Session

Tips for training with children

Characteristics of a Child-Friendly Training

Best interest of the child

Co-training with children/youth

The participatory process

Asking the right questions

Sharing the outcomes

Child-centred DRR Training Using the HVCA

Session I: Icebreakers/Getting started

1 Icebreaker Option 1: Mind Map

2 Icebreaker Option 2: Body Map

4. In plenary, facilitate a discussion on the body map.

3 Icebreaker Option 3: Our feelings in the event of emergencies and disasters

4 Hopes, fears and expectations

Session II: Community Map

Materials: Flip charts, markers, crayons and pencils

Drawing a community map

Session III: Better understanding our risks

OPTIONAL: Transect walk

Session IV: Hazard Identification

Session IV time: Approximately 30 minutes

• Cyclone • Road accident

Session V: Seasonal Calendar, Disaster History, and Climate Change

Option 1: As a take-home assignment

Option 2: The Seasonal Calendar as a group activity during the training

Option 3: As a community consultation

Timing: 15-20 minutes

Climate Impacts & Adaptation (Optional Activity)

Session VI: Hazard Ranking

Session VII: Disaster causes and impacts

Session VIII: Vulnerability Identification

Session IX: Transforming vulnerabilities into capacities and identifying prevention,

Transforming vulnerabilities into capacities:

Identifying prevention, mitigation, and preparation activities:

Session X: Stakeholder Mapping and Influencing

Session X timing: 30 -45 minutes

• Other children • Radio stations/ media

Session XI: Conclusion and Evaluation

First Module – Annex 1: Mind map

First Module – Annex 2: Seasonal

From Plan El Salvador:

First Module – Annex 3: Disaster History

First Module – Annex 4: Hazard Ranking

First Module – Annex 5: Disaster Causes

First Module – Annex 6: Stakeholder

For illiterate or pre-literate children, symbols can be used in place of words.

First Module – Annex 7: Evaluation chart

First Module – Annex 8: Plan

A. Plan’s vision for child protection.

B. Definitions under the Child Protection Policy

C. Scope of the Child Protection Policy

D. Responsibilities under the Child Protection Policy

Plan Staff must not:

Plan Associates and Visitors must not:

All Country, Regional and National Directors must:

E. Personal Conduct Outside Work